Thanks for the response.
By carefully going through each form in the CA return I did find the source of the big positive number. It was indeed on the passive loss form. The way it was computed in TT was as follows:
I have two rental properties, the one I sold in CA and one I own here in Seattle.
Both are listed on the form.
The one in Seattle does run at a loss.
On the passive loss form, you are asked to subtract the loss from a small gain, giving the large number I have been concerned about. This number finds its way to an addition to my CA income.
To me, it seems wrong to take a Seattle generated loss and call it an addition to my California gross income.
I have used the interview generated questions to adjust the difference. The CA taxes now seem to me to be what I should pay. I still have to check it to see what TT has done with my corrections, but TT does not show any errors by what I have done.
