In Gaied, the taxpayer lived in New Jersey and commuted daily to his business in Staten Island, New York. He also owned an apartment in Staten Island that was occupied by his elderly parents. He occasionally slept overnight on his parents' couch when his parents requested assistance. The issue was whether the taxpayer was a resident of New York for income tax purposes.
The Administrative Law Judge initially sustained the taxpayer's Notice of Deficiency on the basis that the taxpayer maintained a permanent place of abode for his parents and occasionally stayed overnight during the years in question. In the Tax Appeals Tribunal's first review of the taxpayer's case, it initially reversed the ALJ's decision and found that the taxpayer's restricted access to the apartment, the fact that he did not have a bed at the premises, and the fact that he only stayed there when requested by his parents did not constitute a permanent place of abode. However, the Tribunal decided that its initial decision was improper and requested reargument. The Division of Taxation argued that the taxpayer's subjective use of the premises should not be determinative for purposes of establishing a permanent place of abode where the taxpayer has a legal relationship to the property and continually maintains the premises, and the property meets the physical attributes of an abode. Upon rehearing the case, the Tribunal reversed its original decision and agreed with the Division of Taxation that the taxpayer's property rights to the subject premises were sufficient to determine that he was a resident subject to tax in New York.
This decision substantially departs from the existing test for residence as outlined in Matter of Evans (Tax Appeals Tribunal, June 18, 1992, confirmed 199 AD2d 840, 1993). Under Evans, the test involved fact-intensive analysis of a taxpayer's use and relationship to the particular dwelling in order to determine whether it was a permanent place of abode. Under the new test set forth in Gaied, if a taxpayer has any property rights to a dwelling in New York and is present for the requisite number of days, the taxpayer may be subjected to income taxation on that basis regardless of subjective intent or use