Thanks all for your help. I did not realise I raised such a
ruckus, but I did file NYS domicile since I live her and
regard NYC as home. Did file full MI taxes and took that as
a credit on NYC.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Hi Ben, You were right about the gross up thing... it is
in-sufficient and yes it is a "BIG FOUR". According to me
they should take a step back and see how exactly do they
handle accounts.

Shiva

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Mark Rigotti, CPA" <rigotti[at]wideopenwest.com> wrote:
- quote -

"Tax home" for federal income tax purposes (determining
deductibility of away-from-home living expenses) is
unrelated to the concept of residence for state income tax
purposes. They are two very different ideas. One's state
income tax residence may also be one's tax home, but they
are not necessarily the same. For example, an individual
may work in a location away from his domicile long enough to
have established a new tax home for purposes of expense
deduction, but still not meet the new state's definition of
a tax resident.

That's because there is a federal definition of "temporary"
away-from-home employment that is different from most state
definitions of statutory residence.

In the income tax arena, state law most certainly can and
usually does differ from (and in that sense "override")
federal law. States are free to enact their own income tax
laws which can be totally different from federal. However,
most states follow the federal definition of "tax home" for
purposes of deductibility of living expenses. Again, that
has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with the definition of
residence for state income tax purposes.

Katie in San Diego

The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and
does not constitute legal or professional advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Alan Wrote:

- quote -

Very Presumptionous of the state. <BG> I can't really
argue with your original position though.

However, I was trying to generate a response to the federal
tax home issue and weather or not that might be used against
the gentleman in question since state law can't override
federal?????

Rgs,

Mark

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

A.G. Kalman wrote:
- quote -

I forgot to append to my post that there is a very
informative analysis of the issue of tax home vs residence
and deducting travel expenses away from home written by E.B.
Morris, a CPA with Rosenberg, Neuwirth & Kuchner. It was
published in the CPA Journal published by the NY State
Society of CPAs. It includes reference to the Rosenspan case
that was mentioned in another thread (State Return
Required.. a very unique case." Rosenspan was the traveling
salesman who was deemed not to have a home of any kind.

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/20...pt/d056201.htm

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Mark Rigotti, CPA wrote:

- quote -

I have to defer to those of you who have access to MI
rulings on this issue. The 183 day rule is a presumption
rule. It would therefore seem to me that this is the case
where the taxpayer could hopefully overcome that assumption
when one looks at all the facts, some of which were never
provided.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

P.S. to Dick Adams,
For what it's worth, Mark's reply showed up as an orphan
(not part of any thread) on my news server.

================================================== ==========
Moderator: My fault - part of the subject header got lost.
================================================== ==========

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Shiva" <shiva338[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Can't be certain about it unless I see all of the
documentation. They can be tricky to analyze and reconcile.

However, on occasion, after carefully analyzing the data, I
have had to request the client's employer correct errors and
issue a corrected W-2. (One of them was a big 4 accounting
firm)

--
<<< Benjamin Yazersky CPA [NJ & NY] > >
<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Sorry about the delay in replying.

per RIA ..... 4 cites

"Mich. Admin. Code R206.5 requires that there be a specific
intent to abandon the old domicile and a simultaneous intent
to acquire a specific new domicile."

"An individual is deemed a resident if he or she lives in
the state at least 183 days during the tax year or more than
half the days during a tax year of less than 12 months. [
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 206.18(1)(a); Mich. Admin. Code
R206.5(3) Rule .]"

"Resident" and "domicile" defined: A "resident" means any
individual domiciled within Michigan or meeting actual
residency requirements. "Domicile" is the place where a
person has his or her true, fixed and permanent home and
principal establishment to which, whenever absent, he or she
intends to return. Domicile continues until another
permanent establishment is established. A person may have
several residences or dwelling places, but can have only one
domicile at a particular time. Domicile, once established,
is not lost until all of the following occur: the specific
intent to abandon the old domicile, the intent to acquire a
specific new domicile, and the actual physical presence in
the new state of domicile. Generally, the domicile of the
wife follows that of the husband. [ Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
206.18(1)(a); Mich. Admin. Code R206.5(1) Rule.]

"The presumption of residency can be overcome by presenting
detailed factual data to the Department of Treasury. Factors
to be considered in determining a taxpayer's residency or
domicile include where the taxpayer keeps his or her mort
important possessions, houses his or her family, votes,
maintains club and lodge memberships, buys automobile
licenses, maintains a mailing address and banks, operates a
business, or sues for divorce. But no one of there factors
is controlling. The failure of a person to pay income taxes
in the state to which he or she claims to have domicile is
very significant. [ Mich. Admin. Code R206.5(2) Rule.] "

The above may seem to support your position. However, the
183 day test seems to be met. Thus my conclusion 52 weeks [at]
75% = 39 Weeks Assuming a 5 day work week equates to a 195
day presence. Now we get into the burden of proof issue
which he may of may not meet. Voters reg. Drivers License,
.... and finally, I still wonder about the federal tax home
issue and whether of not that might make him a MI resident?

Regards,

Mark Rigotti

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

I'm not from MI, but my reading of the MI definition of a resident
is someone whose permanent home is MI. MI clearly is not his
permanent home. MI states that a part-year resident is one who
either moves into or out of their permanent MI home. He fails this
test as well. He therefore must be a nonresident of MI and taxed
only on MI source income.

He already said that his reimbursed travel is taxable income and
that his employer is grossing that up for tax assistance.
He is a part-year resident of NJ, NYS & NYC.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Alan,

Interesting situation here.

First off I'm a Michigan CPA.

My reading is that based upon the situation outlined MI
would consider him a Part Year resident under MI law. MI
would then be giving the credit for taxes paid to NYS and
NYC. Really a mute point as this probably will not lower
his total state taxes but rather allocate more of his state
tax dollars to MI vs NYS.

However, there is a greater issue here that I see. Federal
Tax home?? Is the MI position expected to be a year or
longer. Then he has established a MI tax home for federal
purposes and travel between NYS and MI is not deductible on
form 2106. If it is then this further (IMHO) strengthens
the position that MI is his tax home. If the 1 year rule is
not met then the 2106 deduction would be allowed.

Remenber that tax home and home of the heart are two
seperate issues.

--
Regards,

Mark Rigotti

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

So Ben, How about the gross ups by my employer, are they
correct. Yes I do agree that the returns are complicated and
involved.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Shiva wrote:

- quote -

The underlying assumption is that you both were residents of
NJ for 3 months and residents of NYC/NYS for 9 months.
Either you made a mistake or your employer has made a
mistake. Under NYS, you said $70. Your travel
reimbursements to MI should be included on your NYS W-2 and
if your employer provided tax assistance as it appears he
did, that also would be NYS income. Your NYC wages can't be
higher than your NYS wages (unless of course NYC has
recently seceded from NYS and I didn't read about it.)

As residents of NJ, you must file part year resident tax
returns (NJ-1040). NJ will give you a tax credit (Schedule
A) for taxes you paid NYS & MI on the same income that is
taxable as a resident of NJ. You must file NYS part year
resident tax returns and you also have to file NYC change of
residence tax returns (IT-203, IT-203-B, IT-360.1). NYS will
give you a credit (IT-112-R) for taxes you paid to MI on
income that is also taxed by NYS as a resident. You also
have to file a MI nonresident tax return (MI-1040 with
Schedule NR).

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Shiva" <shiva338[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

You've got quite a bit of work ahead of you. You have to
allocate your income between your resident periods. When I
prepare this type of return, I find that its much more
involved and takes much longer to do. Its much more what I
call mechanically complex rather than complex theoretical
issues.

Looks to me that you will be filing NJ part year res, Mich
NR & NY part yr res & part year non res on the same form.
NY uses one form for part year and nonresidents.

--
<<< Benjamin Yazersky CPA [NJ & NY] > >
<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Scenario for Fiscal Year 2003 (Jan03 - Dec03):
Part A
Lived: My wife and I lived for 3 months in New Jersey
Worked: Wife worked in NY City and I worked in Auburn
Hills, Michigan

Part B
Lived: New York City, NY (for reminder of the year - 9 months)
Worked: Wife worked in NY City and I worked in Auburn Hills,
Michigan

Taxes (w-2)
Wife: Her company witheld taxes for New York State taxes for
12 months and New York City taxes for 9 months (since we are
resident of NYC only for 9 months)

Me: Since I was travelling to Michigan each week from NJ/NY,
my business travel re-imbursements have been added to my W-2
and additional taxes that i have to pay, has been also added
to my income by my employer. Thus if my income for the year
was $100, employer reports the following:

MI - $100 + $ Travel Reimbursements + $ Tax Gross Up due to
Travel Reimbursements
NYC - $70 (9months) + $ Travel Reimbursements + $ Tax Gross
Up due to Travel Reimbursements
NYS - $70 (9 months) (Note: Employer has not grossed up NY
State taxes for additional travel re-imbursements income)
NJ - $30

Question:
How will I be filing my taxes.. Has my employer messed up..
The employers take is that I do not need to have to pay any
income tax in NJ and NYS since I dont have any income from
these locations, all the income is from Michigan. NY City
has been grossed up because i live in NY City.

I have heard my conflicting theories about this state taxes.
My taxes are a fair bit complicated thus need a fair-honest
opinion. Appreicate any help.

Thanks,
Shiva

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->