Hodgson Russ Lawyers Win Residency Case At New York’s Court Of Appeals


As many of our clients and friends learned yesterday, the New York State Court of Appeals has issued its highly-anticipated decision in John Gaied v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal. The court’s decision, in a victory for the taxpayer, established a new rule for determining when individuals domiciled outside of New York may still be taxed here as “statutory residents.” Hodgson Russ attorney Tim Noonan argued the case on behalf of Mr. Gaied.

It’s hard to overstate the significance of the court’s decision, especially considering how often New York asserts resident tax treatment against individuals who clearly live in other states.

For years, the Tax Department has broadly interpreted its residency rules so that an individual who maintained some connection with property in New York could be taxed as a resident of New York if they also spent more than 183 days here. In the Department’s view, it didn’t matter whether a taxpayer actually lived or resided in the state in any fashion—all that was required was that they maintained an abode. But as the Court of Appeals pointed out in its decision, this test, known as “statutory residency,” was originally intended to discourage tax evasion by people who are “really and [for] all intents and purposes . . . residents of the state,” i.e. people who really live here. Thus, in no uncertain terms, the court held that in order for an individual to qualify as a resident under this test, there must be some basis to conclude that the taxpayer maintained a dwelling in the state that was used as the taxpayer’s residence. Stated another way, the court said the abode in question must relate to the taxpayer, and that the taxpayer himself must have a residential interest in the place. This result should affect many open cases as well as help restore the “statutory residency” test to its original intention; that is, to tax those persons (and only those persons) who really live in New York.

More about this important victory:

Click here to read the full decision.

Click here to view the webcast of Tim’s oral argument at the Court of Appeals.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hodgson Russ LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Hodgson Russ LLP on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.