Manthey v. Commissioner of Revenue
| Decision Date | 03 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-90-2351,C2-90-2351 |
| Citation | 468 N.W.2d 548 |
| Parties | Donald R. MANTHEY, Relator, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The decision of the tax court, finding taxpayer remained a domiciliary of Minnesota while working in Alaska, was supported by the evidence as a whole.
Mark J. Vieno, Minneapolis, for appellant.
James W. Neher, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
On certiorari, Donald H. Manthey, relator, appeals the decision of the Minnesota Tax Court, asserting that his status as an Alaskan resident relieved him of liability for Minnesota resident income taxes from 1981 through 1985. Affirming the order assessing income tax, penalties, and interest assessed against relator, the Minnesota Tax Court found relator had remained a domiciliary of the State of Minnesota while in the State of Alaska and, therefore, was responsible for Minnesota income taxes accrued during his absence. We affirm.
In May of 1976, Donald H. Manthey began working in Alaska on various construction projects related to the Alaskan pipeline. While in Alaska, Manthey registered to vote and voted in elections, obtained an Alaskan driver's license, performed jury duty, joined a fraternal organization, registered and licensed his car and trailer, purchased resident hunting and fishing licenses, purchased real estate, and engaged in everyday commerce. The State of Alaska certified Manthey as an Alaskan resident, which gave him a hiring preference in pipeline employment. In 1984 and 1985, the State of Alaska paid Manthey dividends from the Alaskan Permanent Fund. Between 1976 and 1985, Manthey spent most of his time in Alaska, visiting his wife and children in Minnesota only four to six weeks each year, the one exception being 1979, when Manthey returned to Minnesota because of a work shortage in Alaska. In 1986, when declining health forced his retirement, Manthey returned to Minnesota permanently. Throughout those years in Alaska, however, Manthey maintained significant ties with the State of Minnesota.
While away in Alaska, Manthey provided total financial support for his wife and two children in Minnesota. The moneys Manthey sent paid ordinary living expenses as well as upkeep and taxes on their property. Manthey maintained his Minnesota driver's license, which he used to purchase resident hunting licenses in Minnesota. He owned, licensed, and registered motor vehicles in Minnesota. He purchased and maintained rental property. Manthey kept a joint checking account in Minnesota, which listed his name and Minnesota driver's license number on the checks. Although Manthey commenced marriage dissolution proceedings in 1977, the matter was not pursued further.
Until 1981, Manthey and his wife filed Minnesota resident income tax returns even though Manthey spent most of his time in Alaska. After Alaska repealed its individual income tax, Act to Repeal Individual Income Tax, ch. 1, 1980 Alaska Sess. Laws (2d Special Session) (codified at Alaska Stat. Sec. 43.20.012 (1990)), Manthey filed no Minnesota resident income tax returns from 1981 until he returned permanently in 1986.
Income earned by resident taxpayers, regardless of its source, is assigned to this state for state income tax purposes. Minn.Stat. Sec. 290.17, subd. 2(1)(a) (1984). The term "resident" means "any individual domiciled in Minnesota." Minn.Stat. Sec. 290.01, subd. 7 (1990). To establish or change one's "domicile" requires one's bodily presence in a place coupled with an intent to make such place one's home. Miller v. Commissioner of Taxation, 240 Minn. 18, 19, 59 N.W.2d 925, 926 (1953). Rules promulgated by the Commissioner of Revenue expound on the point further:
[T]he domicile of any person shall be that place in which that person's habitation is fixed, without any present intentions of removal therefrom, and to which, whenever absent, that person intends to return.
A person who leaves home to go into another jurisdiction for temporary purposes only is not considered to have lost that person's domicile....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Enyeart
...2 (2001). The most significant factor in determining domicile is the person's intent to remain in a fixed place. Manthey v. Comm'r of Revenue, 468 N.W.2d 548, 550 (Minn.1991). Rule 8001.0300 lists twenty-six items courts must consider in determining whether a person intended to make a parti......
-
Zavadil v. Commissioner of Revenue
...gathering intent “from both acts and declarations.” Id. (citing Seecomb v. Bovey, 135 Minn. 353, 160 N.W. 10, 18 (1917)); see also Manthey, 468 N.W.2d at 550 (“The focuses on intent, examining actions and words to discover that intent”). As a result, cases involving questions of domicile ar......
-
Relator v. Comm'r Revenue, A12–0499.
...the court's assessment of the taxpayer's sincerity and credibility, and the court's weighing of relevant factors. Manthey v. Comm'r of Revenue, 468 N.W.2d 548, 550 (Minn.1991). Accordingly, we conclude there was sufficient support for the court's finding that Mauer's dispute with the NBA is......
-
TMG Life Ins. Co. v. County of Goodhue
...is a fact question, which this court will not disturb "where the evidence, as a whole, supports the decision." Manthey v. Commissioner of Revenue, 468 N.W.2d 548, 550 (Minn.1991). In this case, both TMG's expert and the county assessor agreed that J.C. Penney was paying below-market rent on......