New rules for filing New York taxes

Haven't heard that one but, if true, that would put the final nail in my looking.

NYS just updated http://www.tax.state.ny.us/pdf/publications/income/pub88.pdf

Still says something about 184 days, but anyone affected would read more carefully.

Look at page 2 second paragraph from bottom.

http://www.tax.state.ny.us/pdf/memos/income/m09_2i.pdf

It does not say what you think it says. You need to better understand the legal terms "domicile" and "permanent place of abode", apply your particular facts and see if you are impacted.

leasinglawyer,
My personal situation is that i have no income from new york state sources and also have a permanent home outside new york state which is my domicile state. I rent an aparment in NYC for weekends in the city - hence never there more than 80-90 days in the year. My first instinct was that this doesnt apply to me since my domicile is another state. But then i called NYS dept for taxation, and according to them, with this new rule, since i am renting a place in NYC i am a NYS/city resident for tax purposes. I called a second time and got the same response. Hence my confusion...

wow, this could obviously help NYS raise some revenue short term.

But, might it kill the market for the Pied-A-Terre?

I've always thought NYS/NYC should raise income taxes considerably, but then rebate a lot of the taxes for full-time residents. This is another way to go about it.

Pieds-a-terre do not make for a healthy economy.

As I read the statute, as amended, if you are domiciled outside the state and you maintain a permanent place of abode outside the state, the 30 day rule should not apply. Retain a tax lawyer or accountant to confirm.

It is saying that if you are domiciled in NYS you are aresident for personal income tax purposes unless one of the following:

It sounds to me like you are NOT domiciled in NYS and the 184 day rule would be used in your case.

"I've always thought NYS/NYC should raise income taxes considerably, but then rebate a lot of the taxes for full-time residents. This is another way to go about it.

Pieds-a-terre do not make for a healthy economy."

Sounds backward to me. Why should folks who DON'T live here most of the time - DON'T use the services, don't incur additional costs for the city - pay *more*?

You aren't calling the cops, you aren't using subsidized services, you aren't taking the subsidized subway, you aren't using the subsidized streets.

yet you should pay *more*?

also, you aren't sending your kids to school...

ok here's another question: if I lived in NYC for the first 5 months of a year, then move out of NYC to another place in NYS, is the income I earned in the second 7 months of the year considered NYC taxable income? Does the fact that I lived in NYC for 5 months of the year mean all my income in that year is subject to NYC taxes?

robot,

You would file as a part-year NYC resident, full year NYS resident.

I've been looking closely at "Domicile" because I am considering purchasing a home out of state and establishing domicile there and then would no longer be subject to NY and NYC income taxes.

First thing I learned is that NYS/NYC will PURSUE YOU TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH and try to tax you for the rest of your life if you ever lived here, and make you go to Court to stop paying, where you will probably lose.

A lot of tax decisions here, search for "domicile" http://www.nysdta.org/

Here is Julian Robertson's (Tiger Management hedge fund) ruling that saved him $27 million in NYC taxes, they fought over where he was for 4 days of the year:

http://www.nysdta.org/Determinations/822004.det.htm

"58. Mrs. Robertson testified about the days and events surrounding and including April 15, 2000. Mrs. Robertson returned to New York City on Thursday, April 13, 2000, from a trip to San Antonio, Texas, to visit her mother, and was leaving for a trip to Australia on Sunday, April 16, 2000. After Mrs. Robertson returned from San Antonio, petitioner and Mrs. Robertson spent the evening of Thursday, April 13, 2000, together in New York City. On April 14, 2000 and the morning of April 15, 2000, Mrs. Robertson had a lot of "busy work" to accomplish in New York City, including unpacking from her trip to San Antonio, packing and getting organized for her upcoming trip to Australia to meet with a designer to discuss plans for a golf resort that the Robertsons were then building in New Zealand and getting things together to discuss with the designer. Mrs. Robertson likes to take her time getting these sorts of things done and was better able to do so without having petitioner "in her hair" in New York City. Petitioner would have wanted to leave New York City on April 14, 2000 in any event so that April 15, 2000 would be a non-NYC day. Mrs. Robertson testified that given all that she had to do before leaving the Apartment in the afternoon, it would have been normal for her to have gotten up early on Saturday, April 15, 2000."

A rare victory for the taxpayer.

NY will subpoena your cell phone records, credit card bills, checking account statements, church records, country club memberships etc in their quest at to nail your ass. They will fight you over every fucking day to get you to 183.

"77. While in Southampton, petitioner spends a great deal of time on the telephone with his office, where his assistants often connect him to others who wish to speak with petitioner or with whom petitioner wishes to speak. Ten telephone calls lasting a total of more than 45 minutes were made from Tiger's offices to the Southampton rental on July 31, 2000 (the July 31, 2000 Calls). The first such call was placed at 8:46 A.M. and the last such call with a listed duration greater than 30 seconds was placed at 3:11 P.M. The longest of the July 31, 2000 Calls lasted 15½ and 11½ minutes. Petitioner, Mrs. Robertson and Ms. Depperschmidt each testified that the number, timing and frequency of the July 31, 2000 Calls make it obvious that petitioner was the recipient of the July 31, 2000 Calls, and inconceivable that anyone else could have been the recipient of these calls."

I believe that when you are a part-time resident you pay taxes according with the time you´ve been there, a prorate.

iamlooking,

The rule is still 183 days. But if they challenge your domicile, they can force you to pay NYC income taxes even if you never set foot in the city the entire year. Some taxpayers were out of NYC for 3 or 4 years and were still forced to pay NYS/NYC income taxes (with penalties and interest).

Do you think maybe they were trying to nail Julian?

94. In addition to these materials, the auditor received significant additional documentation regarding 2000 from petitioners' initial representatives and from petitioners' current representatives, including certain long distance phone bills for the Locust Valley home, petitioner's American Express statements, federal tax return and Schedules K-1, golf club records from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, National Golf Links of America and Deepdale, Key Air invoices, copies of airline tickets, copies of car service vouchers, Tiger telephone records, frequent flier statements, bank statements for petitioner's account at JP Morgan, a copy of petitioner's passport, travel itineraries and numerous affidavits. Numerous times throughout her testimony, the auditor acknowledged that she had reviewed many documents provided by petitioners' representatives during the audit.

95. The auditor also subpoenaed and reviewed many more records including telephone records for the Apartment and the Locust Valley home, Mrs. Robertson's car phone records, UTOG car service records, Key Air records (including flight logs), bank records from Citibank, additional golf club records and additional American Express records, including those for Mrs. Robertson. For example, during the course of the audit, the Division issued a subpoena duces tecum dated September 8, 2003 to Verizon - New York, Inc., seeking records in respect of petitioners' telephones at the Apartment, and an additional subpoena duces tecum dated December 1, 2004 to Cingular and by means of the September 8, 2003 subpoena, obtained the telephone company records for the Apartment.

I agree with the interpretation that the 183-day rule applies to iamlooking. The 30-day rule only applies to give you a chance to get out of resident for tax purpose status IF your domicile is in New York.

It is 183 days. I am an agent (yes now you all hate me, I know, agents are hated here). I had an accepted offer on a pied-a-terre for a buyer who has a house in Conn. and works half of the time there and half in the city. He backed out because his accountant advised him of just what is described above. Jenet Levy
Halstead Property
jlevy@halstead.com

after reading this it looks like the 183 day rule applies. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kDuayC541H4J:www.gtlaw.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/contentpilot-core-401-11204/pdfCopy.pdf%3Fview%3Dattachment TSB-M-09%282%29I&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi0Sv73NcustHz6CiOWCWA27L1kmdL9AR5K4_X2Z0eX-7Y6K46zl3JV4iKdPDfwMhZ22U-TuL55srf2JkXhnGOWeec50iy4i0-DYIh236M7HSSpCscv7-z-8hXiCMkyf2Fo7FBd&sig=AHIEtbQL7oulCKe19jn5QxyO0kBUWubvsQ

I'm a Florida resident/homeowner/licensed driver. But I spend time in NYC for doctors, theater, friends... and sometimes have my mail forwarded to the friend's apartment where I stay. The post office notified the Social Security Administration that my new address is in NYC. I wrote to the SSA and enclosed a copy of my Florida driver's license with that address. Waiting for a response.

Thank you all for the posts and discussion.