NY Domicile Ruling: Lessons from Hoff for Residency and Tax Planning
In This Article:
New York’s Tax Appeals Tribunal recently sustained a domicile assessment in Hoff v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, finding that the taxpayers remained New York domiciliaries for 2018 and 2019. While this decision comes out of New York, the scrutiny outlined in detail below is not unique. Many states apply similarly rigorous analyses when evaluating whether a taxpayer has genuinely changed domicile. The decision is notable because, despite taking several formal steps toward Florida residency, the taxpayers’ overall pattern of life continued to reflect stronger ties to New York. The ruling underscores how closely New York examines a taxpayer’s time, home use, business activity, and personal connections when determining domicile for income tax purposes.
A domicile is a person’s primary, permanent home—the place you intend to return to even if you spend significant time elsewhere. AAFCPAs notes that while steps such as registering to vote, obtaining a driver’s license, and filing a declaration of domicile are part of establishing residency, the Hoff case illustrates that these actions alone may not be enough. A full change in domicile generally requires a consistent shift in where daily life is conducted—home, work, social, and financial activities—so that the new state clearly becomes the primary, permanent home.
In reaching its decision, the tribunal looked at the full pattern of the taxpayers’ lives—where they spent the majority of their time, how they maintained and used their homes, and the strength of their business, medical, and social connections. Even with formal steps toward Florida residency, the evidence showed that day-to-day life remained largely centered in New York, which outweighed the isolated actions taken to suggest a change of domicile.
For anyone contemplating a move to a lower-tax state, New York’s decision serves as a reminder that domicile hinges on conduct. A successful relocation requires clear, consistent actions showing a full shift in home, work, and personal life. Without that, taxpayers may face scrutiny during an audit and a higher risk of assessments.
Tribunal Findings and Factors Considered
In evaluating the Hoff case, the New York Tax Appeals Tribunal looked beyond formal documents to the petitioners’ actual behavior. The goal was to determine whether New York was truly abandoned as their primary home.
Time Spent in Each State
One key factor was the number of days the petitioners spent in New York versus Florida. Even after filing for Florida domicile, the couple spent more than half of 2018 and 2019 in New York. States often view spending the majority of the year in one location as strong evidence that it remains the primary home.
Home Ownership
The petitioners maintained significant residences in both states. Their New York home was not sold or downgraded, while the Florida property had been a second home for several years. Owning multiple homes does not automatically change domicile; courts examine which property functions as the permanent home.
Business and Social Ties
Tribunal findings also highlighted ongoing business and social connections in New York. One petitioner continued to draw a salary from a New York-based business, and the couple retained memberships at New York clubs. These ties demonstrated that much of their professional and personal life remained anchored in the state.
Formal Declarations Alone Are Insufficient
While the petitioners had registered to vote, obtained Florida driver’s licenses, and filed a declaration of domicile, the tribunal considered these actions self-serving. Without supporting changes in day-to-day life, such formalities do not by themselves prove a permanent move.
Other Evidence
Additional factors included bank accounts, medical care, and even phone location records, which confirmed the couple’s continued presence in New York for significant portions of the year. Taken together, the evidence showed that New York remained their true home during the audit period.
Practical Takeaways for Relocation Planning
The Hoff case illustrates that changing domicile is a deliberate process that requires more than paperwork or seasonal visits. For anyone considering a move, clear and consistent steps are essential.
Abandon the Prior State
To establish a new domicile, taxpayers should take actions showing that the previous state is no longer their primary home. This may include selling or leasing former residences, relocating business operations or sources of income, and reducing social and professional ties in the old state.
Consider Time and Presence
Spending fewer than 183 days in the original state may help, but it is not a guarantee. Tribunals consider the overall pattern of where daily life occurs. Maintaining offices, clubs, or frequent social activities in the prior state can weigh heavily against a claimed domicile change.
Document Actions and Intent
Keeping records of steps taken to establish a new permanent home is important. This can include real estate transactions, changes in voter registration and driver’s licenses, utility bills, and other evidence showing that life has shifted to the new state. Intent alone is insufficient; conduct must consistently support the move.
Plan Gradually but Conclusively
A gradual, partial move may leave taxpayers exposed to audit risk. The Hoff decision shows that incremental changes, such as retaining key ties to the former state, can outweigh formal declarations of domicile. A well-documented, decisive approach reduces uncertainty and potential assessments.
Frequently Asked Questions About NY Domicile Ruling
Evidence includes where you live, work, and spend the majority of your time. Selling or leasing your old home, relocating your business or income sources, updating voter registration and driver’s license, and shifting social ties all support a new domicile. Formal declarations alone are not sufficient.
Owning a second home does not automatically change your domicile. Courts and tax authorities examine which home functions as your primary, permanent residence, where your day-to-day life is centered.
States may use records such as phone location data, travel receipts, utility bills, or other documentation to confirm where a taxpayer spends the majority of their year.
No. These steps are considered supportive but are insufficient on their own. Consistent actions that reflect daily life in the new state carry more weight.
How We Help
AAFCPAs provides holistic tax planning and wealth advisory for high-net-worth individuals and families, including help navigating the constantly evolving complexities of state and local tax (SALT). For businesses, we provide multistate tax compliance, nexus and apportionment analysis, and guidance on growth, transactions, and operational expansion across jurisdictions. For private clients, we offer tailored strategies that address wealth accumulation and preservation. In both areas, our focus is on helping clients make informed decisions with confidence, providing clear guidance, thorough documentation, and practical solutions to manage risk, optimize tax outcomes, and support long-term financial objectives.
These insights were contributed by Dan Cahill, CPA, Tax Manager and Kelly Zack, MST, Partner, State & Local Tax (SALT).
Questions? Reach out to our authors directly or your AAFCPAs partner.
AAFCPAs offers a wealth of resources on wealth preservation. Subscribe to get alerts and insights in your inbox.
About the Authors
