audreyh1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Yeah - something seems really wrong here! Without an agreement between states with what constitutes establishing residency, we have a real problem. Every state has a different residency requirement, and there is not official "time" specified in many cases.I wonder about this because the long arm statute drags in anyone who is domiciled or residing in Minnesota and arguably you remain domiciled there until you establish a new domicile elsewhere. Page's dissent emphases the problem:
But, after today's decision, taxpayers wishing to establish a change in domicile will have to buy or rent property in another state and remain physically present in that state for some undefined period of time. The logical absurdity of the court's decision is that because the Sanchezes did not buy or rent property or spend sufficient time in South Dakota, they remain to this day subject, at the Commissioner of Revenue's whim, to Minnesota's income tax even though they have completely abandoned their Minnesota domicile. Therefore, I would reverse the tax court's order granting the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.
Do you have any cites on this?
I always felt better that I did not have to change state residency when I went fulltime, although I did change county residency twice. I was just lucky to already live in a low tax state, and selling my house made it even lower.
Audrey