Pratt v. State Tax Commission
128 Idaho 883, 920 P.2d 400, 1996 Ida. LEXIS 104 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To effect a change of domicile, a person must be physically present at a dwelling in a new location and possess a present intention to make that place their home at that time. A future intent to establish a home is insufficient to change domicile.
Facts:
- From 1987 until 1991, William and Joy Pratt were domiciled in Idaho.
- Mr. Pratt was employed by a bank in Boise, Idaho, and the couple intended to move to Clarkston, Washington upon his retirement.
- In March 1991, the Pratts traveled to Clarkston to find housing but were unsuccessful.
- In April 1991, the Pratts located suitable housing in Clarkston and arranged for a lease to begin on June 1, 1991.
- On May 3, 1991, Mr. Pratt's employment was terminated, and he received a termination check for $63,450.
- At the time the check was received on May 3, 1991, the Pratts resided in Boise, their vehicles were registered in Idaho, and they held Idaho driver's licenses.
- The Pratts physically moved to Clarkston, Washington on May 31, 1991.
Procedural Posture:
- The Idaho State Tax Commission issued a determination that the Pratts were domiciled in Idaho when they received the termination payment and thus owed Idaho income tax on it.
- The Pratts challenged this determination by filing a complaint against the Tax Commission in an Idaho district court.
- The case was heard by a magistrate, who granted summary judgment in favor of the Tax Commission, finding the Pratts had not met their burden of proving a change in domicile.
- The district court affirmed the magistrate's decision.
- The Pratts (appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the Idaho Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did William and Joy Pratt change their domicile from Idaho to Washington before receiving a termination payment on May 3, 1991, when they were still living in Idaho but had already secured a lease for a home in Washington effective June 1, 1991?
Opinions:
Majority - Trout, J.
No. A change of domicile requires the concurrence of physical presence at a dwelling place and the present intention to make it a home. The Pratts had not changed their domicile to Washington by May 3, 1991, because while they had a future intent to move, they did not have a present intent to make Washington their home on that date. The court reasoned that an established domicile persists until a new one is legally acquired. Citing Kirkpatrick v. Transtector Systems and the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, the court emphasized that the intent must be current. The Pratts' trips to Washington to find a house demonstrated an intent to make Washington their home in the future, not at that moment; their intention was to return to their Idaho home and wait. The court adopted the principle that, to change domicile, 'One must be able to say, ‘This is now my home,’ and not, ‘This is to be my home.’' Since the Pratts' intent on May 3 was to move later, their Idaho domicile remained unchanged, making the income received on that date taxable by Idaho.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'intent' element required to establish a change of domicile. It clarifies that a mere plan or future desire to move, even when accompanied by concrete steps like securing a future lease, is insufficient. The court establishes that the intent must be a present one, concurrent with physical presence, to make a new place one's home 'at that time.' This precedent makes it more difficult for individuals to claim a change in domicile for tax or jurisdictional purposes before they have physically relocated with the immediate intent to remain, thereby preventing manipulation based on future plans.
