Beyond Gaied: Where Does the Case Take Us?

Peter Faber wrote this bylined article on the case of Gaied v. New York, predicting that New York state will suffer more tax court defeats if it continues to interpret “permanent place of abode” as a physical structure rather than the taxpayer’s use of the property. Mr. Faber wrote that “permanent” should be “limited to situations in which the taxpayer really lives in the property and makes it his real home. It is ridiculous to suggest that a person who owns vacant residential property in New York state and never uses it should be taxed as a resident on his worldwide income if his job brings him into the state for more than 183 days a year.”