The highest court in NY State agreed with a NJ resident that he was not a statutory resident of NY. The NY Tax Department determined that he was a "statutory resident" of New York within the meaning of Tax Law § 605 (b) (1) (B) because he spent over 183 days in New York City (t/p agreed that he spent over 183 days) and maintained a "permanent place of abode" at the Staten Island property during the relevant years in question. T/P disagreed on the second point. The property was purchased by the T/P for use by his elderly and ill parents.
From the decision that overruled a long standing position of the NY tax authorities:
The Tax Tribunal has interpreted "maintains a permanent place of abode" to mean that a taxpayer need not "reside" in the dwelling, but only maintain it, to qualify as "statutory resident" under Tax Law § 605 [b][1][B]. Our review is limited to whether that interpretation comports with the meaning and intent of the statutes involved (Matter of Siemens Corp. v Tax Appeals Trib., 89 NY2d 1020, 1022 [1997]). We conclude there is no rational basis for that interpretation. Notably, nowhere in the statute does it provide anything other than the "permanent place of abode" must relate to the taxpayer. The legislative history of the statute, to prevent tax evasion by New York residents, as well as the regulations, support the view that in order for a taxpayer to have maintained a permanent place of abode in New York, the taxpayer must, himself, have a residential interest in the property.