In this column four years ago, we described a situation where the New York State Tax Department argued a position in two corporate cases (i.e., that the corporations should be required to file separate franchise tax returns rather than combined returns) almost exactly contrary to the position ordinarily taken by the Department. Referencing the Seinfeld episode, “The Bizarro Jerry,” we explained that the Department’s position created “a funny sense of unease as everything you had come to expect is different.” In a recent personal income tax domicile case, Grant G. Biggar, DTA No. 827817 (N.Y. Div. Tax App., Jan. 10, 2019), the Department again made arguments contrary to those it normally takes.
Unsurprisingly, domicile audits and litigation in New York overwhelmingly involve individuals who were previously domiciled in New York but claim to have changed their domicile to Florida or some other low tax jurisdiction. (See, for example, the somewhat recent cases of Gregory Blatt, DTA No. 826504 (N.Y. Div. Tax App., Feb. 2, 2017), and Stephen C. Patrick, et al., DTA Nos. 826838, 826839 (N.Y. Div. Tax App., June 15, 2017, both discussed in this column.) In Biggar, by contrast, the Department argued that petitioner adopted New York as his domicile in 2010. (The case also involved the petitioner’s claim that he also became domiciled in New Zealand in 2014.)
