Getting Away: Ending New York Tax Residency
The New York Department of Taxation and Finance has a sophisticated residency audit program that frequently audits taxpayers who claim to have relocated.
January 27, 2023 at 02:30 PM
8 minute read
So you have decided to move out of New York and make your primary home in another state or country. You may expect to reduce your income tax liability since New York taxes all income earned by its residents but only taxes nonresidents on income derived from New York sources or allocated to days worked within the state. Obtaining nonresident status could yield substantial savings as New York's marginal income tax rates can be as high as 10.9% (without even considering separate New York City income taxes). But are you a nonresident? The New York Department of Taxation and Finance has a sophisticated residency audit program that frequently audits taxpayers who claim to have relocated.
|The Subjective Domicile Standard
An individual's domicile determines status as a resident or nonresident for New York tax purposes. Domicile is the fixed and permanent home to which a person intends to return whenever absent. Where an individual has multiple homes or travels frequently, determining domicile can be highly subjective, often requiring a fact-intensive inquiry to form a picture of intent.
When a New York resident moves out of state, the taxpayer bears the burden to prove the change of domicile by clear and convincing evidence. Bodfish v. Gallman, 378 N.Y.S.2d 138 (NY App. Div. 1976). An individual can only have one domicile at any given time. States, however, can differ in their views on where someone is domiciled and are not bound to respect the determination of another state. Matter of Rudolph (deceased) & Loretta Zapka, DTA No. 804111. Upon audit, the taxpayer must present sufficient evidence to convince the Department that another home has supplanted a New York home as the taxpayer's domicile. If the taxpayer is still in a New York state of mind, domicile may not have changed despite spending significant time in one or more homes outside of New York. The taxpayer cannot shift the burden by merely filing New York nonresident income tax returns that do not get audited. Each tax year stands alone, and a failure to audit a prior-year return does not imply acceptance of the taxpayer's position that domicile has changed or shift the burden of proof if the Department audits a nonresident income tax return for a subsequent year. Matter of Richard & Carolyn Farkas, DTA No. 809927.
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 AllClass Gifts and NY’s 'Adoption Out' Statute: Guidance for NY Fiduciaries on Minimizing Litigation Risks
8 minute readDecision of the Day: Firm, Founding Partner Disqualified From Probate Case Amid Investigation on Undue Influence Claim
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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