Image of Home Logo

Related Resources

State & Local Taxation

Residency Decision Brings Clarity, Not Confidence

Wayne Berkowitz, CPA, J.D., LL.M. 02.25.2014 | eVisor

In the recent Gaied v New York State1 decision, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, added a greater degree of clarity to the definition of what establishes a “permanent place of abode” for New York residency purposes.


New York will tax individuals as residents if they are either domiciled in New York or maintain a permanent place of abode in New York and are present in the state for more than 183 days. The only issue in Gaied was whether or not the taxpayer maintained a permanent place of abode.

The New York Tax Tribunal had interpreted “maintain a permanent place of abode in New York” to mean that a taxpayer need not reside in the dwelling, but only maintain it to qualify as a statutory resident. The Court of Appeals clarified this by stating that “the permanent place of abode must relate to the taxpayer.” In other words, a mere ownership interest in a property is not enough to saddle a taxpayer with a permanent place of abode; rather, “there must be some basis to conclude that the dwelling was utilized as the taxpayer’s residence.”

So while the Court of Appeals put things back in place by reminding the Tax Department that mere ownership in a New York property does not make it a permanent place of abode, this doesn’t mean one should rest easy. It is still crucial to be able to affirmatively substantiate that the permanent place of abode does not relate to you.

1In the Matter of John Gaied, Appellant, v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, et al, Respondents No. 26 Court of Appeals of New York February 18, 2014.

Questions? Contact Wayne Berkowitz at 212.331.7465 |



State & Local Taxation LEAD ADVISORS View All