It’s not that often that we get to see a real bread-and-butter domicile case coming out of New York’s Tax Appeals Tribunal, but we recently got a good one in Matter of Hoff, DTA No. 850209 (N.Y. Tax App. Trib. Oct. 9, 2025). The case dealt with two taxpayers (husband and wife) who claimed a change of domicile from New York to Florida in October 2018. They had lived in Canandaigua, New York, for many years and had purchased a condo in Naples, Florida, in 2014, while continuing to maintain their home in New York. As the years went on, the taxpayers decided they wanted to change their domicile and live in Florida as full-time residents. This decision was in part because the taxpayer-husband was looking to either transfer his New York company to his son or sell it to a third party and retire.
The amount at issue wasn’t huge—the taxpayers were assessed tax and interest of $59,648 for the 2018-2019 tax years. But it was enough for the taxpayers to take their case all the way up to the Tribunal.
While the Tribunal acknowledged that the taxpayers’ intent to move to Florida was clear, “the manifestation of that intention [was] not evident during the period at issue.” In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal relied on some of the following factors:
- The taxpayers continued to maintain their historical New York home for the years at issue.
- They also continued full membership at two country clubs in New York, only joining one Florida country club in 2018.
- Few to none of their personal effects were moved from New York to Florida; they bought new furniture for their Naples home.
- While some of the formalities were done before the audit period, such as voter registration, driver’s licenses, and a declaration of domicile, this was insufficient without other factors. Plus, some formalities were completed during or after the audit period. For example, the couple’s Florida hunting and fishing licenses were issued in 2020.
- Only one of the taxpayers’ four cars was registered in Florida within the audit period. Two others were registered in 2020 and 2021, and the fourth was still insured in New York.
- There was no evidence of the taxpayers opening bank accounts in Florida during the audit period, while a New York bank and a New York brokerage account were still used.
- Further, the creation of a Florida revocable trust and a new will, subject to Florida laws, both occurred in 2019.
- The taxpayers continued to receive income from their New York businesses. The taxpayer-wife was a graphic designer who operated her own business; she opened a Florida business, but her income was derived only from her New York business during the audit period.
- The taxpayers also spent three of four significant holidays in their New York home throughout the audit period.
However, what was probably the most damning of all the factors under consideration was that, in 2018 and 2019, taxpayers spent more days in New York than in Florida. In 2018, they spent 186 days in New York and 131 days in Florida. In 2019, they spent 164 days in New York and 153.5 days in Florida.
In any Florida domicile case, the taxpayer has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that their primary home shifted from their previous place of domicile to Florida. In our experience, the best way to prove that Florida is one’s new primary home is to spend significantly more days there than in the previous place of domicile. Conversely, taxpayers who spend more days outside Florida often fall short of meeting their burden to prove that Florida is their primary home. Never say never, of course: The time factor is but one factor, and we have seen cases in which it’s not determinative (see Matter of Patrick, DTA Nos. 826838, 826849 [N.Y. Div. Tax App. June 15, 2017]; Matter Blatt, DTA No. 826504 [N.Y. Div. Tax App. Feb. 2, 2017]). However, in Hoff, the taxpayers' unfavorable time factor, combined with the balance of the other factors, proved fatal to their domicile case.
Disclaimer:
This blog is a form of attorney advertising. Hodgson Russ LLP provides this information as a service to its clients and other readers for educational purposes only. Nothing in this blog should be construed as, or relied upon, as legal advice or as creating a lawyer-client relationship.
