Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Seahawks QB Sam Darnold lost money in the Super Bowl
Boomer explains how Sam Darnold owes a hefty California Tax bill for playing football in California. In fact, he owes $71,000 more than he earned for playing in the Super Bowl. Hard to escape the long arm of California Franchise Tax Board.
The reports emphasize this is a tax-based loss for this specific game based on his annual salary (about $35M) and the number of days (7) he spent there earning it. Guess he shouldn't have spent so many days there prior to the game. My other guess is that he won't miss it and for me it's nice to see at least one millionaire paying his taxes like every other working stiff with far lesser annual income does.
No difference for daily paid income like money markets, life annuities, daily accrual mutual funds, ect. Spend a day in California and you earned it there.
There is some legitimacy to such a law. Imagine a fellow who incorporates a business just inside Nevada, but does 99% of his work in CA. Or a fellow who works in CA, but resides in Nevada (no state income tax).
Both would be earning their entire living in the state of CA, while paying no state tax in Nevada. This would be a big imbalance, as it probably rarely goes the other way.
Some states have reciprocal agreements, but this usually applies to states that BOTH charge state tax. And where there is far less imbalance.
Another example: If you live in Florida, and work in Alabama, you pay state tax on wages earned in Alabama. This, even though Florida has no state income tax.
Comments
given sam is a 1st-rounder turned journeyman, i assure you he would pay this and much more for conf championship and superbowls.
Both would be earning their entire living in the state of CA, while paying no state tax in Nevada. This would be a big imbalance, as it probably rarely goes the other way.
Some states have reciprocal agreements, but this usually applies to states that BOTH charge state tax. And where there is far less imbalance.
Another example: If you live in Florida, and work in Alabama, you pay state tax on wages earned in Alabama. This, even though Florida has no state income tax.