|
Posted by A.G. Kalman on March 4, 2007, 9:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options doshan@scicable.com wrote:
>> This must be my season for this. I have had 3 situations
>> where I have determined that a child attending school away
>> from home was no longer a qualifying child and that one had
>> to fall back to the qualifying relative rules (unfortunately
>> they all failed the QR rules due to income of at least
>> $3300). More importantly, as they were no longer considered
>> to be living at home, two of the situations prevented the
>> parent from filing as HOH.
>>
>> Basically, what had happened was that the students, who
>> range in age from 21 to 22, were attending out of state
>> schools and paying in state tuition (CA & IL). Prior to
>> leaving for college, they were all New Mexico residents.
>>
>> Here are excerpts from the CA state college system and the
>> Univ. of IL system regarding who is eligible for in-state
>> tuition.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Physical presence in the State solely for educational
>> purposes does not constitute the establishment of California
>> residence under State law, regardless of the length of stay.
>>
>> Students must provide documentation that they established
>> ties to California and relinquished ties to any prior state.
>> Evidence of intent to make California a permanent residence
>> includes committing to a long-term lease; paying California
>> income taxes as a resident, including taxes and income
>> earned outside California from the date residence is
>> established; registering to vote and voting in all
>> California elections; designating California as the
>> permanent address on all school and employment records,
>> including military records if in military service; obtaining
>> a California driver's license or California Identification
>> Card; obtaining California motor vehicle registration;
>> licensing for professional practice in California.
>>
>> The absence of these indicia in other states during any
>> period for which California residence is claimed is also
>> pertinent. Documentary evidence is required.
>>
>> Principal elements which determine residency are domicile in
>> Illinois and actions which evidence the intent to make
>> Illinois the person's permanent residence. A person has but
>> one domicile at any time. Mere physical presence in
>> Illinois, regardless of how prolonged, is insufficient to
>> establish residency without action and intention to make the
>> place a permanent residence and principal home. To establish
>> bona fide residency in Illinois under this policy, a person
>> must demonstrate presence and intent to reside permanently
>> in Illinois for reasons other than educational objectives.
>>
>> The burden of establishing that a person is domiciled in
>> Illinois for other than educational purposes is upon the
>> person. The regulations, factors, and procedures enumerated
>> in this policy will be considered by the University in
>> determining residency status.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> It certainly appeared to me that in order to qualify for
>> in-state tuition one had to establish that there had been a
>> change in domicile for a purpose other than paying in-state
>> tuition. I concluded, that these children could no longer be
>> away from "home" for a temporary absence if they had to
>> prove that they changed domicile.
>>
>> Am I being too harsh? is there a way to get around my
>> reasoning?
> I'm not sure it matters what CA wants or expects or what the
> student signs. For example if the child returns home for
> vacations, holidays, school recesses such as summer, etc.
> and has the intent at the time to continue to return home, I
> would think the child would be considered temporarily
> absent. There is a case where a mother was incarcerated and
> being held for murder for such a period during the year that
> she did not qualify to claim the EIC for her child. She had
> not yet been convicted of the crime. Because she stated
> that her intent was to return home to her child should she
> be found not quilty the court ruled that she was temporarily
> absent. This may not be a very good case to cite... but it
> still does go to what the persons intent is or was. If I
> were the parent I would be claiming the exemption. Unless
> the kids made quite a lot of money.
The reason for my post is in your opening statement of "I'm
not sure it matters..." The dilemma is that I think it does
matter. If a child has changed domicile from NM to CA or IL
and a person can only have one domicile (your one true home,
the one place you always intend to return to whenever you
leave), then it certainly seems that it is the visits to mom
and dad that are the temporary absences, not the visits to
their domicile.
--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net
<< ======================================================= >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ======================================================= >>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap