NY State Dept of Taxation Loses Case On Who Is Statutory Resident

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.
formatting link

Reply to
Alan

Site Timeline Threads

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.