The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that a couple, partial owners of large trucking company, failed to prove that they changed their domicile from Nebraska to Florida for income tax purposes from 2010 to 2014. The taxpayers argued that they had changed their domicile to Florida, asserting that they had acquired a

A recent significant precedential and unanimous decision by the California Office of Tax Appeals, Matter of the Appeal of Beckwith, provided more guidance on how to determine California domicile and residency for state personal income tax purposes.

In his article for Law360, Eversheds Sutherland Senior Counsel Eric Coffill provides five domicile takeaways and

The District of Columbia occupies a unique position among subnational jurisdictions in the United States given its status as a nonstate, federal enclave. The District’s status allows it to impose individual income tax on only residents under the district clause of the US Constitution, the Home Rule Act of 1973, and implementing statutes that are

On August 31, 2022, the California Office of Tax Appeals (“OTA”), in the Matter of the Appeal of B. Housman and B. Pena, held that an Australian software company holder, Housman, and his wife are California residents and Housman is entitled to a stepped-up basis as a result of a valid check-the-box election to be

The California Office of Tax Appeals held that a taxpayer was a California resident and domiciliary when he redeemed shares of his Tennessee-based employer in 2012. Accordingly, the taxpayer was assessed additional state income tax on the value of the redeemed shares.

In 2008, the taxpayer moved from California to Tennessee and purchased a home.

The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal reversed an administrative law judge determination and held that an individual was not a statutory resident of New York in 2014 because he did not maintain a permanent place of abode in New York for 11 months of the year.

On audit, the Department of Taxation and Finance

On August 31, 2022, the D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine announced that his office was pursuing an action against an individual, Michael Saylor, for allegedly owing individual income tax to the District as a resident under a “fraudulent scheme.” The Attorney General is also pursuing a violation of the False Claims Act related to his

The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal affirmed an Administrative Law Judge determination that two taxpayers remained New York residents because the taxpayers did not establish that they had changed their domicile to Florida during the relevant tax years. Because the taxpayers spent “more than 30 but less than 184 days in New York,” the

The Utah Supreme Court ruled for taxpayers John and Brooke Buck, finding they were not domiciled in Utah during tax year 2012. The Court held that the State Tax Commission had incorrectly applied Utah’s statutory domicile presumption that attaches when a taxpayer claims a residential exemption for property tax purposes. As addressed in more detail