Jim Jensen wrote:

- quote -

If you look at the construction of the sentence, I think it
is clear that the 546 days refers to the length of the
absence, not the length of the contract.

If your friend is actually absent from the state for 546
days or more (and spends no more than 45 days/year in
California during that time), the safe harbor rule will
apply.

Katie in San Diego

The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and
does not constitute legal or professional advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

California R&T Code Sec 17014 states: "For any taxable year
beginning on or after January 1, 1994, any individual
domiciled in this state who is absent from the state for an
uninterrupted period of at least 546 consecutive days under
an employment-related contract shall be considered outside
this state for other than a temporary or transitory
purpose."

I'm not clear on the 546 days. Can a person meet this
safe-harbor requirement with an employment-related contract
for 365 days immediately followed by a renewal of the
contract for another 365 days? Or must it be one contract
covering at least 546 days?

This is for a friend who worked in Pakistan (non-military)
under a one-year contract, and recently signed up for
another year.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->