Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Dorsey lawyer’s Strib editorial on residency requirements for income tax purposes doesn’t make much sense. Not surprising, as it’s plainly self-interested on three fronts – keeping in good with the Tax Court and with Democrat politicians, as well as keeping her wealthy clients after they move out-of-state.
First, she says the law on residency hasn’t changed and it’s not a problem. Then she says two recent notable cases weren’t a big deal and the losers should have lost. But then she says she supports the proposed change in legislation because people who move out of state shouldn’t have to switch lawyers to prove a change in residence.
Hey, either the law was fine before, or the critics were right and the tax court has turned this state into the Hotel Minnesota: once you live here you can never leave, you’re always a “resident” for income tax purposes.
I agree with the critics: the present law is overly broad, inconsistently applied and antiquated. The only reason we still have it is Democrats want to tax rich people wherever they live, however slight their connection to this state and the present law is a fig leaf to justify it.
Joe Doakes
rumors that the DFL wants to tax everyone who has ever been a professional athlete in Minnesota are exaggerated.
Probably.
How will it tax income from an out of state trust? Inquiring minds want to know.
Vermont has long had this down to a science since so many rich liberals own second homes there. Their trick is massive state-wide property taxes, much of which they rebate to state residents. Works great for screwing the out-of-staters and snowbirds who try to minimize their tax burden.
So Minnesota is still playing catch-up here.
In Hawaii they do the same things with sales tax, Nerdbert. Full-time and part-time residents, and tourists, pay sales tax, but you get a partial rebate if you file Hawaii state taxes.