Relocating to Fla. as a Result of the 2017 Tax Act? It May Not Be as Easy as It Sounds
As a result of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it is now even more advantageous to be a resident of Florida or a resident of another state that does not impose a state income tax. Prior to 2018, state and local taxes were fully deductible as an itemized deduction on an individual's federal income tax return.
October 04, 2018 at 09:12 AM
6 minute read
As a result of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it is now even more advantageous to be a resident of Florida or a resident of another state that does not impose a state income tax. Prior to 2018, state and local taxes were fully deductible as an itemized deduction on an individual's federal income tax return. That all changed as a result of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Beginning in 2018 and ending in 2025, the deduction for state and local taxes is limited to $10,000 (or $5,000 for married couples filing separately). Furthermore, during this same time period the standard deduction has been increased to $24,000 for joint filers, to $18,000 for heads of households, and to $12,000 for singles and marrieds filing separately. Therefore, not only is the state and local tax deduction capped, but with the increased standard deduction, the capped state and local tax deduction may not provide any benefit. Itemized deductions will only result in a tax benefit if they are greater than the standard deduction. If all itemized deductions, which include the deduction for state and local tax capped at $10,000, are less than the standard deduction, the taxpayer will deduct the standard deduction and the state and local tax deduction will result in no tax savings. As a result, living in a state that has income tax can be even more expensive than before the new tax law, because now the deduction for state and local taxes may not provide a tax benefit on one's federal income tax return.
Generally, in order to become a resident of Florida for tax purposes, one would have to change his domicile to Florida. Domicile is the place you consider your permanent home. It is the place where you intend to return after a period of absence. It is where your center of gravity is located. The test for determining the state of your residence is a facts and circumstances test, which would include considering the following questions:
- Where is your primary home?
- Do you own second homes in other states, and if you do where is your most expensive home?
- Do you spend more than 183 days per year in Florida?
- If you own a home in Florida, have you applied for the homestead exemption for that home?
- Where is your employment?
- Where are your friends and family?
- Where are your doctors, lawyers, CPAs?
- Where are your assets?
- Where are your bank accounts, brokerage accounts and investment advisers?
- Where are the clubs to which that you belong?
- Where is your place of worship?
- Where are you registered to vote?
- What state issued your driver's license?
- What county or municipality issued your library card?
- Where are your vehicles titled?
- Do you have Florida wills and trusts prepared by a Florida lawyer?
- Have you filed a Florida Declaration of Domicile in the county of your Florida residence?
- Have you filed final tax returns in your former state, and reflected your address on that return you Florida address?
This list points out many of the factors that must be considered. There may be other questions to be answered depending on the particular circumstances of the taxpayer. There is no bright line test. Not all of the answers to these questions would have to come out on the side of Florida in order to make one a Florida domiciliary. These questions merely provide an idea of the types of factors that will be considered in determining domicile.
Once domicile in a particular state is established, domicile remains in that state until the taxpayer establishes a new domicile. Generally, the taxpayer has the burden of proof of establishing that he has changed his domicile. Therefore, it will be the taxpayer's burden to demonstrate that he has moved his domicile to Florida, based on the facts and circumstances.
Even if the taxpayer is able to demonstrate that he has changed his domicile to Florida, he still needs to comply with the laws of his former state to in order to no longer be subject to tax in his former state. Maintaining too many ties in the former state, such as a residence or spending too much time in the former state, are critical factors. For example, New York will tax an individual who is not domiciled in New York if the individual maintains a permanent place of abode in New York for more than 11 months of the year and spends 184 days or more in New York during the year. New Jersey will tax an individual even though he is not domiciled in New Jersey if he maintains a permanent home in New Jersey for the entire taxable year and spends more than 183 days in New Jersey during the year. Pennsylvania will tax a non-domiciliary unless he spends more than 181 days of the year outside Pennsylvania, or he has no permanent abode in Pennsylvania for any part of the year.
Although there has always been an advantage to relocating to Florida for tax purposes, the new tax law has made the advantage of coming to Florida even greater. Even though it is relatively easy to become a Florida resident for tax purposes under the eyes of the state of Florida, one must still comply with the laws of his former state in order not to continue to be subject to tax in the former state. Although the laws of every state is different, important factors are generally whether a residence is maintained in the former state and the number of days spent in the former state. Any individual considering moving to Florida for tax purposes should consult his tax adviser in his former state to assure that he disassociates himself from his former state under that state's laws.
Eugene Pollingue Jr., is a partner with Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr in West Palm Beach. His practice focuses on the area of estate planning and asset protection for high net worth clients, probate, and income tax planning for commercial transactions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 2A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
- 3Pa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
- 45th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
- 5Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250