NOTICE: IC § 6-8.1-3-3.5 and IC § 4-22-7-7 require the publication of this document in the Indiana Register. This document provides the general public with information about the Department's official position concerning a specific set of facts and issues. This document is effective as of its date of publication and remains in effect until the date it is superseded by the publication of another document in the Indiana Register. The "Holding" section of this document is provided for the convenience of the reader and is not part of the analysis contained in this Letter of Findings.

An individual did not lose his Indiana domicile for 2011, since the individual did not establish a new domicile in another state for 2011.

I. Indiana Individual Income Tax - Residency.

Authority: IC § 6-8.1-5-1; IC § 6-3-1-12; IC § 6-3-1-13; 45 IAC 3.1-1-21; 45 IAC 3.1-1-22.

Taxpayer protests the Department's proposed assessment of Indiana income tax.

The Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") issued a proposed assessment for Indiana income tax, penalty, and interest. Taxpayer, an individual, filed a protest of the Department's assessment. An administrative telephone hearing was held; this Letter of Finding results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Indiana Individual Income Tax - Residency.

At the outset, the Department notes that the burden of proving a proposed assessment wrong rests with the person against whom the proposed assessment is made, as provided by IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c).

Taxpayer in his protest letter states that he had filed an Indiana individual income tax return "which produced a result of $0 owed to [the] State of Indiana." Taxpayer states that he has not been a resident of Indiana since November of 2010. Taxpayer explains his facts thusly:

Taxpayer provided a letter from his employer, which states that Taxpayer was hired by them in December 2010. The letter also states that in June 2011, Taxpayer entered their training program "as a Trainee" for the company's Ohio location. The letter further states that the "program was two years in length with rotations every six months, depending on the needs of the business and the acceleration of the trainee." Per the letter, Taxpayer's housing was paid for by the company and that "[a]t no time during [Taxpayer's] training did he reside in the state of Indiana." Thus Taxpayer lived in Ohio from December 2010 to June 2011, then in another state on the east coast for several months, and then back to Ohio for the remainder of 2011. Taxpayer's housing, during this program, was paid for by his employer.

At the hearing Taxpayer stated he had an Indiana driver's license in 2011, and that he did not get a new license until 2014. He has also stated his vehicle had an Indiana title until 2014. Taxpayer stated he did not vote in 2011 or after. Taxpayer also noted that he did not take the homestead credit (the Department notes that since Taxpayer did not own a home in Indiana the homestead credit is inapplicable to him).

Turning to the relevant law, IC § 6-3-1-12 states:

And IC § 6-3-1-13 states, "The term 'nonresident' means any person who is not a resident of Indiana." 45 IAC 3.1-1-21 states:

Additionally, 45 IAC 3.1-1-22 states:

During the telephone hearing, Taxpayer stated that he lived in Indiana from 1997 to December 2010. Thus, as 45 IAC 3.1-1-22 states, "Once a domicile has been established, it remains until the conditions necessary for a change of domicile occur." Taxpayer had an Indiana domicile as of December 2010. The question before the Department is whether or not Taxpayer met the conditions for a change of domicile–i.e., did Taxpayer replace his Indiana domicile by establishing a new domicile in another state for 2011?

The Department finds that Taxpayer had an Indiana domicile in 2011. Taxpayer registered his vehicle in Indiana for 2011 (and per the Taxpayer, for the next 3 years). Likewise, Taxpayer had an Indiana driver's license in 2011. At the hearing, Taxpayer stated that since he was moving around frequently he kept his Indiana driver's license and vehicle title. The Department also notes that Taxpayer lived in two different states in 2011–thus Taxpayer did not establish a new domicile since the training program involved rotations every six months (the letter from the employer notes Taxpayer's frequent relocations to learn the business and that his housing was paid for by the employer). The Department finds that Taxpayer did not lose his Indiana domicile for 2011, since Taxpayer did not establish a new domicile for 2011.

Taxpayer was also assessed penalty and interest. Taxpayer did not develop an argument regarding these issues, thus Taxpayer's protest is denied on these issues too.

Taxpayer's protest is respectfully denied.