Qualifying Child: What's A Temporary Absence?

This must be my season for this. I have had 3 situations where I have determined that a child attending school away from home was no longer a qualifying child and that one had to fall back to the qualifying relative rules (unfortunately they all failed the QR rules due to income of at least $3300). More importantly, as they were no longer considered to be living at home, two of the situations prevented the parent from filing as HOH. Basically, what had happened was that the students, who range in age from 21 to 22, were attending out of state schools and paying in state tuition (CA & IL). Prior to leaving for college, they were all New Mexico residents. Here are excerpts from the CA state college system and the Univ. of IL system regarding who is eligible for in-state tuition.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Physical presence in the State solely for educational purposes does not constitute the establishment of California residence under State law, regardless of the length of stay. Students must provide documentation that they established ties to California and relinquished ties to any prior state. Evidence of intent to make California a permanent residence includes committing to a long-term lease; paying California income taxes as a resident, including taxes and income earned outside California from the date residence is established; registering to vote and voting in all California elections; designating California as the permanent address on all school and employment records, including military records if in military service; obtaining a California driver's license or California Identification Card; obtaining California motor vehicle registration; licensing for professional practice in California. The absence of these indicia in other states during any period for which California residence is claimed is also pertinent. Documentary evidence is required. Principal elements which determine residency are domicile in Illinois and actions which evidence the intent to make Illinois the person's permanent residence. A person has but one domicile at any time. Mere physical presence in Illinois, regardless of how prolonged, is insufficient to establish residency without action and intention to make the place a permanent residence and principal home. To establish bona fide residency in Illinois under this policy, a person must demonstrate presence and intent to reside permanently in Illinois for reasons other than educational objectives. The burden of establishing that a person is domiciled in Illinois for other than educational purposes is upon the person. The regulations, factors, and procedures enumerated in this policy will be considered by the University in determining residency status. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It certainly appeared to me that in order to qualify for in-state tuition one had to establish that there had been a change in domicile for a purpose other than paying in-state tuition. I concluded, that these children could no longer be away from "home" for a temporary absence if they had to prove that they changed domicile. Am I being too harsh? is there a way to get around my reasoning?

-- Alan

formatting link

> > > > > > > > >
Reply to
A.G. Kalman
Loading thread data ...

No and I don't believe so.

One could quite easily be a resident of state X (Virginia and North Carolina come to mind as examples of X) for state income tax purposes and still not qualify for in-state tuition at state supported colleges/ universities. If one has established that one is entitled to in-state tuition, it would be a very high hurdle to show that one was, for tax purposes, really a resident of a home located in another state.

Reply to
Bill Brown

In the past, for CA resident tuition rate, there was a waiting period essentially equal to one year -- in other words one year after one established legal residence, one could then take the in-state tuition rate. Woe unto you who tried to double-dip on the income tax side (claim residence for tuition purposes but disclaim residence for tax purposes).

-Mark Bole

Reply to
Mark Bole

I'm not sure it matters what CA wants or expects or what the student signs. For example if the child returns home for vacations, holidays, school recesses such as summer, etc. and has the intent at the time to continue to return home, I would think the child would be considered temporarily absent. There is a case where a mother was incarcerated and being held for murder for such a period during the year that she did not qualify to claim the EIC for her child. She had not yet been convicted of the crime. Because she stated that her intent was to return home to her child should she be found not quilty the court ruled that she was temporarily absent. This may not be a very good case to cite... but it still does go to what the persons intent is or was. If I were the parent I would be claiming the exemption. Unless the kids made quite a lot of money.

Reply to
doshan

The reason for my post is in your opening statement of "I'm not sure it matters..." The dilemma is that I think it does matter. If a child has changed domicile from NM to CA or IL and a person can only have one domicile (your one true home, the one place you always intend to return to whenever you leave), then it certainly seems that it is the visits to mom and dad that are the temporary absences, not the visits to their domicile.

-- Alan

formatting link

Reply to
A.G. Kalman

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.