When is a stay in California for a temporary or transitory purpose, and which visitors does the regulation name?

The statute asks about purpose, and the regulation supplies the vocabulary

A resident includes "[e]very individual who is in this state for other than a temporary or transitory purpose" and "[e]very individual domiciled in this state who is outside the state for a temporary or transitory purpose" (Rev. and Tax. Code section 17014(a)(1), (2)), and a resident "continues to be a resident even though temporarily absent from the state" (section 17014(c)). The statute does not define the phrase.

The regulation explains why purpose is the test. Its aim is to tax on their entire net income "all individuals who are physically present in this State enjoying the benefit and protection of its laws and government, except individuals who are here temporarily," and to exclude domiciliaries who are outside the state for other than temporary or transitory purposes and so "do not obtain the benefits accorded by the laws and Government of this State" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014). The Board of Equalization, citing the Court of Appeal, put it the same way: "The purpose of the residency statute is to insure that all individuals who are in California for other than a temporary or transitory purpose enjoying the benefits and protection of the state should in return contribute to its support" (Appeal of Stephen D. Bragg, 2003-SBE-002, citing Whittell v. Franchise Tax Board (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 278, 285).

Residence and domicile are therefore separate: "an individual may be a resident although not domiciled in this State, and, conversely, may be domiciled in this State without being a resident" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014). And the categories that follow are introduced with a caution: whether a purpose is temporary or transitory "will depend to a large extent upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case," and the lists are what "can be stated generally" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014, subd. (b)). The Office of Tax Appeals treats the question as one of fact, decided on all the circumstances (Appeal of Bracamonte, 2021-OTA-156P).

The visitors the regulation names as temporary

The regulation's short-stay list has three groups (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014, subd. (b)).

The traveler in transit: a person "simply passing through this State on his way to another state or country." California is a waypoint, not a destination.

The person here to rest: a person here "for a brief rest or vacation." The word "brief" matters. An open-ended stay to rest shades into the retirement category on the other list.

The person here for one defined piece of work: a person here "to complete a particular transaction, or perform a particular contract, or fulfill a particular engagement, which will require his presence in this State for but a short period." The closing condition governs all three kinds of work, and the working words are "particular" and "short." A contract with a defined scope and an end date fits. Work with no defined end belongs on the other list, whatever the contract calls it.

The word "tourist" does not appear in that list. It appears only in the regulation's six-month rule and the sentence after it, under which a nondomiciliary who keeps a permanent abode at the domicile, spends no more than an aggregate of six months of the taxable year in California, and engages in no activity "other than that of a seasonal visitor, tourist or guest" is treated as here for temporary or transitory purposes. That rule and the nine-month presumption of section 17016 are the subject of the library's article on the six-month and nine-month rules. The difference matters: the six-month rule supplies a conclusion when its conditions are met, while the general categories describe purposes that still have to be proved.

The business-visitor category can hold through long cumulative presence. In Appeal of Joseph and Rebecca Peskin, 1961-SBE-039, an Illinois businessman started several California ventures and spent from about four and a half to almost ten months a year in California over six years. The Board of Equalization held him a nonresident for every year. His "frequent short stays" were "evidence that Appellant's business did not require his constant presence here for long or indefinite periods," relatives ran the ventures day to day, and his family home, voter registration, banking and principal business stayed in Chicago. "The amount of time spent in California, however, does not, of itself, control the issue of residence." The Board of Equalization denied the FTB's petition for rehearing (Appeal of Joseph and Rebecca Peskin, 1962-SBE-001).

The four purposes the regulation names as not temporary

The second paragraph of subdivision (b) lists the purposes that make a person a resident "even though he may retain his domicile in some other state or country":

1. Health: a person here "to improve his health" whose "illness is of such a character as to require a relatively long or indefinite period to recuperate."
2. Business: a person here "for business purposes which will require a long or indefinite period to accomplish."
3. Employment: a person "employed in a position that may last permanently or indefinitely."
4. Retirement: a person who "has retired from business and moved to California with no definite intention of leaving shortly thereafter."

Each category turns on the expected length of the purpose, not on the activity. A surgery with a scheduled two-week recovery is a brief stay for health; a course of treatment whose end the physicians cannot predict is the first category. A four-month commissioning job is a particular engagement; a role running the plant with no end date is the third category. Retirement alone is not residency; the category requires a move "with no definite intention of leaving shortly thereafter."

The regulation's three examples show the line. In Example (1), a man domiciled in Quebec for 50 years is ordered to California by his doctor and lives here except for summer trips of three or four months to his Quebec home; he is a resident "because his yearly sojourn in California is not temporary or transitory." In Example (2), a California domiciliary declares a Nevada domicile "to avoid the California income tax" and spends three or four months a year at a Nevada summer home, but keeps his California estate, spends six or seven months a year there and keeps his social, club and business connections here; he is a resident. In Example (3), a retired Minnesota couple winter in a California house they own from November to mid-March, keeping their family home, clubs and a nominal business role in Minnesota; they are not residents, because "[t]he connection of each to the state of domicile in each year is closer than it is to California" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014, subd. (b)). The couple had retired, but they had not moved to California without a definite intention of leaving.

The same test, run in reverse, for a California domiciliary

A domiciliary "remains a resident unless he is outside of this State for other than temporary or transitory purposes" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014). The regulation reverses its own examples: with California as the domicile, the Quebec and Nevada individuals "are not residents of California" because they are absent for other than temporary or transitory purposes, and the Minnesota couple, wintering elsewhere, "are residents of California" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014, subd. (b)).

The statute fixes two outbound results. A domiciliary and spouse are considered outside California for a temporary or transitory purpose while the individual holds federal elective office, serves on the staff of a federal elective officer in the legislative branch, or holds a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed executive office (other than in the armed forces or as a career Foreign Service appointee) held at the pleasure of the President (Rev. and Tax. Code section 17014(b)). At the other end, an absence of at least 546 consecutive days under an employment-related contract is treated as for other than a temporary or transitory purpose when the statute's conditions are met (section 17014(d)), the subject of the library's article on work assignments outside California.

Between those rules, the regulation's employment and business categories decide the outbound cases. "When a California domiciliary leaves the state for purposes of employment, the relevant inquiry is not the type of employment pursued, but whether or not his absence from California is for a temporary or transitory purpose" (Appeal of Stephen D. Bragg, 2003-SBE-002). An indefinite job is evidence, not a conclusion. In Appeal of Anthony V. and Beverly Zupanovich, 1976-SBE-002, a marine engineer spent more than three years abroad on a contract that began at nine months and ran on. The Board of Equalization acknowledged that "the indeterminate nature of appellant's employment" abroad "tends to indicate nonresidency," but held him a resident: his wife and daughter stayed in a California home, his banking, accountant and lodge stayed here, and he had built no comparable ties elsewhere. In Appeal of Pierre E.G. and Nicole Salinger, 1980-SBE-080, a couple with a Paris lease and foreign accounts were residents because "the actual or potential duration of one's absence from California is not the only factor to be considered in determining the nature of a domiciliary's absence"; they kept their California home, licenses, registrations, accounts and business interests and offered no employment contract to support the claimed indefinite term. The contrast is Appeal of Hardman, 1975-SBE-052: the family went abroad together for a project expected to last at least a year, leased the house, sold the cars and enrolled their daughter in school there, and when the project collapsed the Board of Equalization still held the absence was for business requiring a long or indefinite period.

Proving the purpose

The regulation states the theory that decides proof: "the state with which a person has the closest connection during the taxable year is the state of his residence" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014, subd. (b)). The determination "cannot be based solely on the individual's subjective intent, but must instead be based on objective facts," and "the contacts the individual maintains in this and other states are important objective indications of whether the individual's presence in or absence from California was for a temporary or transitory purpose" (Appeal of Stephen D. Bragg, 2003-SBE-002). The factors listed in Bragg, discussed in the library's article on how the FTB evaluates a claimed change of residency, are the working list of those contacts. The Office of Tax Appeals, citing the Court of Appeal, gives physical presence more weight than declared intent (Appeal of Bracamonte, 2021-OTA-156P, citing Noble v. Franchise Tax Board (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 560, 567).

The regulation's proof provisions, unchanged since the regulation was renumbered in 1983, read generously. "Ordinarily," affidavits or testimony of the individual "and of his friends, employer, or business associates" that the individual was in California "for a rest or vacation to complete a particular business transaction, or to work for a limited period of time will be sufficient to overcome any presumption of residence here." Affidavits that a person "votes in or files income tax returns as a resident of some other state or country, although relevant in determining one's domicile, are otherwise of little value in determining one's residence" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014, subd. (d)(1)). Current appeals weigh those affidavits against the documents: "[u]nsupported assertions are insufficient to satisfy a taxpayer's burden of proof" (Appeal of Bracamonte, 2021-OTA-156P). A statement of purpose that card charges, leases and calendars contradict carries little weight; one they corroborate carries a good deal.

Two further provisions shape the filing position. A person presumed to be a resident, or whose status is in question, "should file a return" even if he or she believes nonresidence applies, with "a signed statement setting forth in detail the reasons why the individual believes he was a nonresident" and any affidavits available (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014, subd. (d)(2)). And because status "will generally depend upon his activities or conduct during the entire year, it will not be possible, ordinarily, to determine his status until after the close of the year" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014, subd. (e)). A purpose that looked temporary in March is judged by what the person did through December.

Where the categories run out

A purpose that changes mid-year. An engineer domiciled in Colorado comes to California in February under a four-month contract to commission a plant expansion, rents a furnished apartment month to month and leaves the family in Denver. In June the owner offers an open-ended position running the plant; the engineer accepts, signs a twelve-month lease, and the family arrives in August. Through June the engineer fits the particular-engagement category; after accepting an indefinite position, the employment category describes the purpose. The regulation says that one who "acquires the status of a resident by virtue of being physically present in the State for other than temporary or transitory purposes" stays a resident through temporary absences (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, section 17014), but not on which day the purpose changed. The acceptance, the lease and the family's arrival are each candidates, and the date is a question of fact.

Repeated short stays. Example (2) of the regulation treats six or seven months a year at a maintained California estate, with clubs and business here, as not temporary, while Peskin treated years of frequent business trips, with the home and principal business elsewhere, as temporary. The difference was not the count but what the connections showed about why the person kept coming.

Remote work. The employment and business categories assume the work happens where the person is. Neither the regulation nor FTB Publication 1031 (2025), which summarizes the same categories (section H), addresses an extended California stay by a person working remotely for an employer elsewhere. Whether that is a "particular engagement" requiring a short stay or a position that "may last permanently or indefinitely" performed from California is left to the facts.

Practice notes

The categories work best as a test of the record before a stay or absence begins. For a nondomiciliary coming to California, the sound sequence is to define the purpose in writing (the contract term, the project scope, the treatment plan, the length of the visit), match the living arrangements to it, and keep the home, family and principal business at the domicile in use; a California lease, a family move or local school enrollment is where a particular engagement starts to look indefinite. For a California domiciliary leaving for work, a long or open-ended contract is evidence, but Zupanovich and Salinger show it does not outweigh a family, home and accounts left in California, and Hardman shows what a household move adds. Where status is in doubt, the regulation contemplates a return with a detailed signed statement of the reasons for nonresidence, and current practice expects documents that corroborate it. A change of purpose during the year is documented on the date it happens, because otherwise the examiner sets the date. G&G State Tax Group provides California residency analysis, planning for temporary assignments and residency audit representation alongside its state and local tax practice.