California residency
I am considering taking a job that will involve travel to various sites and offices on the West Coast and states immediately adjacent – basically California, Nevada, Arizona and Oregon. I will have considerable latitude on where to spend my time, but the main office is in Los Angeles, and expect to spend most of my time there by necessity. I will probably get a cheap apartment there. I am currently a resident of Illinois.
It looks like my employment position does not have a truly fixed site – and I can arrange it so that I spend less than six months of the calendar year within the confines of California. I'm keeping my house in Illinois, my wife and kids will remain there, as I expect to transfer back to Illinois within two years. My take on this is that if I don't vote in California, have my main home there, and my family remains in Illinois (where I maintain closer connections) I can take the position that I am a nonresident of California. But I don't see a way to avoid paying California income tax on whatever amount of my overall salary is attributable to days that I work within its borders. So if my salary is $100,000, and I spend 5 1/2 months of the year in California, I should pay state income tax on $55,000. And I would like to pay Illinois income tax on the remaining $45,000. Problem is that by taking this days worked approach, I would probably have to file Arizona and Oregon based on the same "days worked" approach. I'm not trying to save taxes by filing in Illinois – it's tax rate is pretty much the same as Arizona and just a little less than Oregon. But filing in three states is a hassle. Obviously, under this approach I should try to work as much as I can in Nevada, which has no state income tax.
Any thoughts? Do the states agree to respect a reasonable approach like this? Or do they take whatever position gets them the most amount of state income tax.