State Tax Residency Cases-Indiana Style

The title is a bit misleading and purposeful as this really doesn’t add to the body of knowledge for state tax residency rules. However, it reinforces the basis by which most states determine tax residency.

State tax residency is important as the state where an individual keeps their legal domicile is the state that has a right to tax global/worldwide income earned by the taxpayer. The more common term to describe this relationship is a Permanent Residence. This is different from the concept of a Tax Home that determines from where an individual has travel related expenses that are either deductible or that they can receive reimbursements for on tax-free basis. .

Many of our clients deal with Permanent Residence issues either because they are moving, staying too long in one state or the state wants to take an aggressive tone toward some relationship that the client has to a state.

In these 2 Indiana state tax cases, one positive for the taxpayer and the other negative, the same common benchmarks were used to determine whether the taxpayers had a domicile in Indiana. These benchmarks are common to most states:

1) Purchasing or renting residential property
2) Registering to vote
3) Seeking elective office
4) Filing a resident state income tax return or complying with the homestead laws of a state
5) Receiving public assistance
6) Titling and registering a motor vehicle (Drivers Licenses)
7) Preparing a new last will and testament which includes the state of domicile.

Item 6 is very important as you will see in the two cases that are linked below:

In the first case, entitled “negative”, the taxpayer was a physician that moved to Louisiana to take a permanent job, however, he continued to use his ex-spouses address in Indiana for license, registration and insurance purposes.  Most states treat residency similar to a flight on an airplane-when you take off, the wheels no longer touch the ground and when you land the wheels touch the ground in the new location. When one moves and changes their domicile they are expected to sever all residential ties so that their affairs no longer touch the old state. Additionally they are expected to establish ties in the new state to replace the ones that were severed in the old state. You cannot just take off, you have to land as well. Similar to this case, the taxpayer took off but never landed as he continued to maintain his Indiana residential and legal ties.

2016-indiana-residence-case-negative

In the second case that was decided for the taxpayer, a couple moved from Florida to Indiana, however the wife came first and the husband came a year later. Generally, most states expect spouses to move together which is most likely the reason that Indiana Department of Revenue expected the couple to file joint returns as residents Indiana in the wife’s first year of residence. However, in this case, the husband remained in Florida working at his full-time job and did not change his legal ties  – his driver’s license and car registration,  until he moved to Indiana. The wife was correctly judged to be a part year resident of Indiana in year one, and the husband a part year resident of Indiana beginning in year two.

2016-indiana-residence-case-positive

Take Away

One of the most common misconceptions among mobile professionals is that they are only taxed in whatever state they work. That is not the case. An individual is taxed on their worldwide income by the state in which they are domiciled-where they maintain their permanent residence. They are also taxed by the work state on income earned within their borders. However, to relieve the possibility of double taxation, the home state will generally credit the taxpayer for taxes paid to other states on the same income.

The final take away is simply the power of the state to impose tax on all income an individual earns if they continue to maintain their legal ties to that state. Simply taking another job in another state doesn’t change the equation. The ties to the old state must be severed and at the same time, ties to the new state must be established.

Yet Again, Another State Residency Case

Since we specialize in multi-state client situations, it is no surprise that we are a bit anal about residency issues. On the heels of the UT case we posted recently comes one from Arkansas that was ruled for the taxpayers despite the lingering legal ties to Arkansas.

The case involves a couple that moved from Arkansas (a state with an income tax) to Texas (a state without an income tax) in the later part of 2012. Within one year they returned to Arkansas due to pregnancy related complications requiring family support which they did not have in Texas.

Arkansas Department of Revenue ruled that the couple never really abandoned their Arkansas domicile for the following reasons:

  1. Kept Arkansas drivers licenses and even had one reprinted
  2. Maintained homestead exemption on Arkansas property
  3. Continued car registration and Voter registrations in Arkansas

As the case reads, the couple did not make a lot of effort to sever their Arkansas ties but the court took notice that

  1. The husband took a permanent position with greater responsibility in Texas
  2. Enrolled their Children in School
  3. Were reimbursed by their employer for the move to Texas
  4. Commenced their pregnancy related treatments in Texas

Generally, state revenue agencies will not relinquish the right of taxation on those who do not properly sever their ties to the old state AND establish ties in the new state. Even if that is done, an absence of only a year similar to the taxpayers case will not be sufficient to claim non-residency.  Its rare cases like this that the courts will intervene

We are posting the case for its instructive discussion. The case outlines many of the factors that Arkansas used to determine the  domicile of the taxpayers. None of which are unusual compared to other states.

When one moves to another state, care must be taken to sever ties to the old state to avoid the risk that the old state will assess tax as if the taxpayer never left

arkansas-residency-case-2016-12-12

Indiana and California drop their “reverse Credit” arrangement starting with the 2017 tax year

When one works in more than one state, both the home state and the work state will tax the income. The home state will then credit the taxpayer for the taxes paid to the work state on that income to avoid double tax on the same income.

Some border states have a reciprocity agreement where income earned in the border state is considered income earned in the home state so that only the home state will tax that income

For residents of AZ, CA, OR, IN and VA, when one lives in one of the listed states and works in the other, the credit goes in “reverse” . For example when a VA resident works in CA, the credit to relieve double taxation is allowed by CA, not the home state VA. IN and CA have dropped their reverse credit arrangement as of the 2017 tax year. For tax years 2017 and later, IN will allow a credit for taxes paid to CA against IN state tax obligations on the same income. (Note: IN and VA do not share this arrangement).

State Taxes for Strike Travelers Might Get Easier

On September 21, 2016, the U.S. House passed the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015, which would limit states’ authority to impose personal income taxes on nonresident employees for work performed in other states. If enacted, the bill would preclude an employee’s income earned in more than one state from being taxed in any state other than the employee’s state of residence and the state where the employee is present and performing employment duties for more than 30 days in the calendar year. The bill would also exempt employers from withholding and information reporting requirements for employees not subject to income tax under this law. The bill would allow employers to rely on the employee’s annual determination of the time expected to be spent working in a state, absent fraud or collusion.

The definition of “employee” would not include professional athletes and entertainers and prominent public figures performing for wages or other remuneration on a per-event basis.

The bill text is available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2315/text.

My comment: For most travelers this does not change the game, however those working strikes might be affected. If it passes the Senate and is signed into law I could see states like CA and NY take it to court.

One tidbit: Senator Lieberman of Connecticut introduced this bill a long time ago and it never got any traction. The purpose of the bill then was to contain border state NY from taking tax revenue from CT 🙂