NS_Bane wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:53 am
criticalmass wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:48 am
What facts are you relying on in the Massachusetts General Laws and tax code to suggest that "more art" supersedes the 183 day test that IS in 62 MGL?
It's right there in the definition of "Resident" in 62 MGL (
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralL ... 2/Section1): "any natural person
domiciled in the commonwealth."
criticalmass wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:48 am
Similarly, where your vacation travels take you does not make you a resident either. Heck, I take the Paris - Boston route too because it is shorter and usually cheaper, than I can stay in New England for a few days or maybe even weeks. That doesn't make me a resident. Stay with the legal definitions.
Most states generally apply the common-law concept of "domicile" which is a facts and circumstances test. But don't take my word for it - take it from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue
https://www.mass.gov/technical-informat ... sachusetts:
A person who is domiciled in Massachusetts is considered a resident of Massachusetts. In the absence of a statutory definition of domicile, the Department looks to common law concepts in fashioning a definition. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 284 Mass. 41 (1933). Domicile is "the place which is an individual's true, fixed and permanent home, determined by established common law principles and the facts and circumstances in each case." 830 CMR 62.5A.1(2), Non-resident Income Tax. A domicile determination is largely a factual determination that takes into consideration many factors relating to a person's social, economic and political life.
Any first year law student (and it has been many years since I was one) is familiar with the concept of domicile. Under common law, everyone has a single domicile, and the interesting cases you hear about in law school are where someone's domicile was challenged and a court had to review all of the facts and circumstances presented to rule where the domicile was, and these are the wacky cases where someone proved it based on where they kept their favorite Van Gough painting or something similarly obscure and arbitrary.
Just look at the example of Paul and Linda in the MA Dept Revenue link I posted above. In that example, they spend
less than 6 months in MA. However the MA Dept of Revenue considers them residents for tax purposes, because their driver's licenses, bank accounts and friends and family are all in MA.
Circling back to my earlier post that you tried to pounce on, OP didn't seem to like the concept that he has to pick a domicile. He does, and he has to establish it based on the facts and circumstances. When someone tried to helpfully suggest different facts and circumstances he could use to establish he live in FL, he said those all pointed to MA. Well if ever told a judge that then the judge would rule his domicile is in MA. He needs to be creative and think of facts and circumstances that would show his domicile is in FL. Furthermore, it would be his burden to make that showing because he is asserting that his domicile of origin had changed (See Commonwealth v. Davis, 284 Mass. 41 (1933)).
criticalmass wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:48 am
Best to stick with the facts AND the law for residency definition before inventing ad hoc creative tests on the internet.
Look I don't blame you for not knowing the law, especially common law. It's complicated. But in this conversation you are achieving an interesting combination of being both wrong and also condescending about it.
Not to worry, I have knowledge of the law that successfully keeps me well out of trouble. Not sure why you prefer to be condescending or why you are trying to change circumstances from what I wrote to here. Perhaps that is a new Boglehead common law.
Clearly, if a person has driver's licenses in MA as in your example, they are likely a Massachusetts resident, regardless of how many nights she slept in Massachusetts last year.
You may have missed that the OP is contemplating changing domicile, and mentioned changing driver license, voter registration, and voting registration to the new domicile. That is what I am referring to, not your interpretation or alternative examples. My bank accounts are with Schwab (Nevada) and Ally (Utah). I wish anyone good luck trying to tell me or any state department of taxes that I am a Nevada or Utah resident, I haven't stepped into either place in years, except perhaps to change planes. Keep the mailing address at your chosen domicile. I also have friends and family in Massachusetts and throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe, but my domicile remains. I note that you needed to go back to 1933 to find your case which ironically just confirms that if you claim a domicile without actually living there very much you are afoul of Massachusetts.
But more importantly, when you carefully reviewed the case you cited, you would have noted that Edgar was attempting to claim a domicile in Massachusetts
DESPITE that he
"spent little time in Texas and continued to be in the city and other places in this Commonwealth (MASSACHUSETTS)
as much as he always had been; and that
he made no change in his general mode of living and activities."
That's not the facts or circumstances that the OP contemplates, nor is it what I mentioned earlier and now.
In your other example above, also note that the couple Paul/Linda already consider their domicile to be Massachusetts, so there is no dispute or concern.
Yes, if you try to cheat the system, Massachusetts DOR will throw the book. Nobody says otherwise, certainly not me. But you CAN maintain domicile in Florida and maintain property in Massachusetts (and Minnesota, and Corsica, and Alaska) that you visit from time to time. Just don't be like the seven Northwest pilots that attempted to claim "residency" in Florida that was actually an uninhabitable shack while living in Minneapolis. The state tax authorities were not impressed. Some got significant tax bills AND felony tax evasion charges. Have a great day!