Moving from California to New Hampshire: Residency, Taxes, and What to Prove

In California

California is both a major origin state, since many nurses domiciled here take travel contracts elsewhere, and the single highest-paying destination state for travel assignments. A nurse's tax home must be a genuine, regularly-returned-to residence with duplicated living expenses; nurses who claim a tax home in Texas or Florida but never actually go back risk having the FTB or IRS reclassify housing stipends as taxable wages if the facts show California, not the claimed state, is really home. A nurse domiciled outside California who works a temporary California assignment as a W-2 traveler does not become a California resident from that assignment alone, but the wages earned during the California contract are still California-source and must be reported on a nonresident Form 540NR.

In New Hampshire

New Hampshire has no state income tax to complicate a travel nurse's tax-home analysis, which makes it an attractive tax-home state to claim, similar to Florida or Texas, provided the nurse genuinely maintains and returns to a New Hampshire home between assignments under the general IRS tax-home rules (Publication 463). New Hampshire itself publishes no nurse-specific guidance because it has no individual filing requirement to trigger one.

In California

California is the most aggressive jock-tax state. FTB counts not just game days but practices, walkthroughs, and even voluntary workouts held at a California team facility during game week, which can turn one road game into three or four California duty days. With the Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Kings, 49ers, Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Giants, Padres, and Athletics all based here, nonresident athletes playing any California team face California nonresident tax on their duty-day-apportioned income, while California-domiciled athletes owe California tax on their full worldwide income.

In New Hampshire

New Hampshire has no major professional sports franchises, so it runs no state jock-tax regime of its own, and because it has no income tax, a New Hampshire-domiciled athlete owes zero state tax on the share of income attributable to New Hampshire duty days, unlike a player based in a state that both taxes and credits.

In California

The nine-month presumption under §17016 only creates a rebuttable presumption of residency past that point; it does not create a safe harbor below it. Spending fewer than nine months in California does not guarantee nonresidency; FTB still applies the closest-connections test. This is the classic dual-home audit target described across Bogleheads and r/tax threads: a retiree who keeps the California house, splits time with a Nevada or Arizona property, but leaves a spouse, kids, doctors, or the majority of actual annual days in California.

In New Hampshire

New Hampshire places no day-count cap on long visitors of its own, since it has no statutory residency test. The exposure runs entirely the other way: someone who claims New Hampshire domicile to escape a high-tax origin state (most commonly Massachusetts) but still spends significant time and keeps a home in that origin state can be taxed there as a statutory resident regardless of the New Hampshire claim.

In California

California has no convenience-of-employer rule like New York's. A nonresident who physically performs all their work outside California for a California-headquartered employer is not California-taxed on those wages solely because the employer is based here. The trigger is the employee's own residency and physical work location, not the employer's address. A California resident, however, owes California tax on remote wages regardless of where the employer sits.

In New Hampshire

New Hampshire has no convenience-of-the-employer rule (it has nothing to source, having no income tax). The real friction runs the other direction: a remote worker who moves to New Hampshire but keeps a Massachusetts-based employer needs to confirm Massachusetts is not still asserting Massachusetts-source treatment of the wages under its own COVID-era sourcing rules, which New Hampshire itself challenged (unsuccessfully, at the Supreme Court) on behalf of its residents in 2020-2021.

In California

California follows the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act. Active-duty military domiciled outside California but stationed here under orders are not California residents and their military pay isn't California-taxed. Under MSRRA and the Veterans Benefits and Transition Act, a nonmilitary spouse can elect the servicemember's domicile for state tax purposes instead of being pulled into California residency by physical presence alone.

In New Hampshire

New Hampshire follows the federal SCRA and MSRRA: a service member's home-of-record does not change solely because military orders station them in New Hampshire, and an accompanying spouse can generally elect the service member's domicile state under MSRRA. Because New Hampshire taxes no individual income, choosing it as home-of-record eliminates state income tax on military pay entirely.

In California

Federal law (49 U.S.C. §40116) limits taxation of air carrier employees to their state of residence and any state where they earn more than 50% of their pay, overriding ordinary duty-day sourcing. California hosts major crew bases at LAX and SFO, so this carve-out matters heavily for California-based flight crew who fly national or international routes.

In New Hampshire

New Hampshire has no major hub airport for airline crew, but the federal carve-out (49 U.S.C. § 40116, taxing crew wages only in the state of residence or a state where over 50% of pay is earned) combined with New Hampshire's lack of any income tax makes it, like Florida and Texas, a common domicile choice for crew based at nearby Boston Logan who want to avoid Massachusetts income tax on their wages.