News & Insights

States facing budget pressures are increasingly exploring wealth-focused tax measures, but proving residency remains one of the biggest obstacles to enforcement. The article examines how domicile disputes can determine whether high-net-worth individuals are subject to taxation, with Hodgson Russ Partner Tim Noonan providing insight into the legal complexities of residency audits and taxpayer relocation.

New York City's implementation of its new pied-à-terre tax on high-value second homes remains on track after the city filed an appeal, which temporarily suspended a court order that had paused parts of the rollout. The measure has generated controversy as thousands of property owners have received notices requiring them to prove their homes qualify as primary residences and are therefore exempt.

Tax-exempt status alone does not automatically qualify an organization for exemption from New York property taxes. Nonprofits seeking property tax relief must satisfy specific statutory requirements, and certain ownership structures can present additional considerations.

Cross-border life insurance planning can present significant tax and estate planning challenges when Canadian business owners or shareholders have U.S. tax ties. Differences between Canadian and U.S. tax rules can create unintended consequences affecting life insurance proceeds, business succession planning, and the transfer of wealth across generations.

Over recent years the New Jersey Division of Taxation has sent a wave of erroneous refund denial notices to resident taxpayers.  In the usual situation that we see, the resident has paid additional tax to New York following a personal income tax audit.  That additional New York tax payment typically generates a New Jersey refund as a result of New Jersey’s offsetting credit for taxes paid to New York.

In a recent decision, the Albany County Supreme Court vacated the Cannabis Control Board's (“Board”) denial of a public convenience and advantage (“PCA”) waiver, finding that the record and written determination did not adequately explain the basis for the decision. In Matter of Sonz of Cannabis Control Board, Index No. 912009-25 (Sup. Ct., Albany County, Aug. 11, 2026) (Savona, A.S.C.J.), the court provided additional guidance on the level of analysis and documentation the Board may need to provide to enable applicants and reviewing courts to understand the rationale for its determinations.

On August 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted summary judgment to two groups of plaintiffs challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, holding that the Act is preempted by federal law. The decision relies principally on the Second Circuit’s ruling in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2021), which held that New York City could not pursue state-law claims seeking damages from fossil-fuel producers for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse gas emissions.

On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts which enjoined the federal government from implementing President Trump’s recent order regarding mail-in ballots. The decision was issued per curiam with three dissents and, collectively, consists of 37 pages. The decision has been widely, and confusingly, reported in the press. This alert explains the decision and clarifies what the Supreme Court has, and has not, ruled.