Was a Connecticut-domiciled student a California resident while attending university here, and when did accepting a California teaching job change the result?

Plain-English summary

California Legal Ruling 122 treated a Connecticut-domiciled student as a California nonresident during her university years, despite spending about nine months per year in the state.

Her California presence had a single educational purpose. She kept her home, family, social, banking, voting, and tax-return ties in Connecticut and returned there during vacations.

The result changed in September 1950, when she returned to California to begin a teaching job. That employment indicated a purpose that was no longer temporary or transitory.

Facts addressed by the ruling

The taxpayer lived with her parents in Connecticut until entering a California state university in June 1946.

From September 1946 through June 1950, she registered and paid tuition as a nonresident student.

During those years:

• her parents kept living quarters for her in their Connecticut home;
• she returned to Connecticut during vacations;
• she maintained Connecticut bank accounts;
• she voted in Connecticut; and
• she filed federal income-tax returns in Connecticut.

In spring 1950, she accepted a California teaching position. After spending the summer at her parents' home, she returned in September to begin work.

Nonresident tuition was not conclusive

The ruling said payment of nonresident tuition did not determine income-tax residence.

Under former section 17014, the tax question was whether the person was physically present in California for a purpose that was not temporary or transitory.

Former regulation 17013-15(b) required examination of all facts characterizing the stay.

Why the student years remained temporary

Nine months of California presence in each taxable year from 1946 through 1950 raised a presumption of residence.

The taxpayer overcame that presumption by showing:

• one limited purpose—education;
• absence from her domicile only as long as needed for school;
• continuing family, social, and business interests in Connecticut; and
• return to Connecticut at every opportunity.

School attendance alone was not sufficient on these facts to make the stay non-temporary.

Why employment changed the result

The taxpayer returned to California in September 1950 not merely to attend school but to begin teaching.

The ruling treated that employment as evidence of a purpose no longer temporary or transitory and made her a California resident beginning that month.

What this means for you

Students

Under the historical ruling, school enrollment and time spent in California were important but not conclusive. Purpose and continuing connections to the home state mattered.

Parents

Maintaining a student's room, return pattern, and family home formed part of the evidence supporting the student's continuing domicile and temporary stay.

Accountants and tax professionals

Document housing, voting, banking, tax filings, family and social ties, vacation travel, tuition classification, employment, and the purpose and expected duration of California presence. Apply current residency law to the full facts.

Common questions

Q: Did paying nonresident tuition automatically prove nonresidency?

A: No. The ruling said tuition status was not conclusive for income-tax purposes.

Q: Did nine months per year in California create a residency issue?

A: Yes. It raised a presumption, but the taxpayer overcame it with evidence of her limited educational purpose and Connecticut ties.

Q: Was attending school alone enough to establish California residence?

A: Not on these facts.

Q: When did the taxpayer become a California resident?

A: In September 1950, when she returned to begin teaching.

Q: What changed at that point?

A: Her California purpose shifted from temporary education to employment that the ruling treated as non-temporary.

Citations and references

• Former Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 17014
• Former California regulation 17013-15(b)

Source

• Landing page: California FTB Legal Rulings
• Official HTML: Legal Ruling 122

Original ruling text

Home

California Franchise Tax Board Legal Ruling 1954-122 April 6, 1954

Student attending college in California, but domiciled elsewhere, is not a resident of this State in the particular circumstances.

Residence: Students

Taxpayer resided in Connecticut with her parents until June, 1946, at which time she entered California to attend a State University. She was registered as a nonresident student from September, 1946, through June, 1950, and paid nonresident tuition. Her living quarters were retained for her in her parents' home and she returned there during vacation periods. She maintained bank accounts, voted, and filed her Federal income tax returns in Connecticut during the entire period. She was offered a teaching position in the spring of 1950 which taxpayer accepted. She returned to her parents' home for the summer and reentered California in September, 1950, to begin teaching. Advice is requested on taxpayer’s resident status for California income tax purposes.

The payment of nonresident tuition fees is not conclusive for income tax purposes; the test for tax purposes is physical presence for other than a temporary or transitory purpose. (Personal Income Tax Law, Section 17014). In the past, nondomiciliary students who entered California for extended study have been deemed within the State for other than temporary or transitory purposes and consequently taxed as residents. However, presence for the sole purpose of school attendance may not be sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute presence for other than temporary or transitory purposes. Regulation 17013-15(b) indicates that the facts of each case must be examined to determine the character of the stay.

In the present case a presumption of residence is raised by an aggregate of nine months presence during each of the taxable years 1946 through 1950. However, taxpayer has overcome this presumption by showing that she absented herself from the state of domicile for a single educational purpose and only so long as was necessary to accomplish that purpose, and further that her family, social and business interests all remained in Connecticut, to which state she returned at every opportunity.

Taxpayer should be treated as a resident beginning in September, 1950, as her employment within this state at that time indicates a purpose not temporary or transitory in character.

Last updated: 09/24/2025