Domicile and Taxes

Thomas Campaniello had apartments in New York City and in Florida.  He also had a sizeable income. In 2006 Campaniello decided to change his domicile to Florida but still spend time in both states. That is easier said than done, as far as the taxing authorities are concerned.  You can’t just declare where you want to be taxed. Under New York State law one must prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that the New York domicile has been abandoned.
Here’s what Campaniello did right. He kept very clear records, proving that he spent less than six months in New York (169 days, to be exact). He provided the tax authorities with summaries of his trips, copies of his passport pages proving his foreign travel, credit card and cell phone statements for all of 2007. He had a Florida driver’s license, owned his car there, and kept important personal items, such as his doctoral diploma, in his Key Biscayne apartment.
Here’s what Campaniello did wrong, according to the Administrative Law Judge who heard his case. Although he spent more time in Florida than in New York, he did return to New York for some portion of almost every week. He received bills at his New York address, had family ties in New York, kept personal belongings and clothing in his New York apartment, ran his Florida and New York businesses from his New York offices, and continued seeing medical professionals in New York. He did not clearly surrender his New York domicile, in the eyes of the taxing authorities.
The conclusion: Campianeillo owed New York tax as a full-time resident, not as a part-time resident, as he had filed. That meant that there was a shortfall of $319,009.00 in New York State taxes, $169,772.00 in New York City taxes, plus penalties and interest that brought the total owed to $709,429.00.
What else might Campaniello have done to bolster his argument, short of ending his contacts with New York completely? Planners sometimes suggest such actions as registering to vote in the new domicile, joining a local place of worship, having all mail sent to the new address, and retaining new lawyers, accountants and doctors in the new domicile. If one is moving to Florida, it may be useful to apply for the Homestead Exemption on the Florida residence.
© 2016 M.A. Co.  All rights reserved.


When Dmitri remarried in 1989, he created a revocable trust for his wife and his two sons from his first marriage, his only descendants. The sons were to receive a distribution from the trust at Dmitri’s death, but most of the assets were to remain in trust for the life of the surviving spouse. At the survivor’s death, the trust would terminate in favor of the sons or their descendants. The sons were named the trustees of this trust.

Some 23 years later, Dmitri had a change of heart. In August 2012 he had the revocable trust restated, removing the sons as trustees, and he also removed the distribution to them at his death. The sons were very unhappy with this development, and they let their father know about it. They were particularly displeased with the choice of Celia Rafalko as successor trustee, as they believed that she was a close confidant of their stepmother. Dmitri took umbrage at their communications, which, he felt, impugned the character of his wife and showed a lack of confidence in his judgment.

Dmitri died in December 2012. In January 2013 one brother wrote to his stepmother proposing that they all agree to terminate the trust, splitting the principal equally among the brothers and the stepmother. He also asked that all records of trust administration be preserved carefully.

Unbeknownst to the brothers, Dmitri had a second restatement of the trust done in September, after the disagreement with the sons. This time the trust included an in terrorem clause, which disinherited any beneficiary who interfered with the administration of the trust. When they learned of the secret clause, the first son backed off on his suggestion, and the second son disavowed any knowledge of the suggestion to terminate the trust.

In accordance with the September trust, Rafalko sent the sons releases to be signed, in which they promised never to contest any aspect of the trust’s administration. They signed. Nevertheless, Rafalko warned the sons that she was going to consider whether they had violated the in terrorem clause. In May 2013 she told the sons that they were disinherited. This would have no effect on the stepmother’s trust interest, but it did result in Rafalko having the power to direct the trust assets to charities at the stepmother’s death.

The sons challenged their disinheritance, and the Virginia courts found that the trustee had acted in bad faith. Communication regarding a change in the trust’s administration is not the same thing as mounting a legal challenge to it, and the brothers instantly backed off when they learned of the in terrorem clause. As the purposes of that clause were fully achieved, the trustee’s further “punishment” of the sons was an abuse of discretion. The sons were also awarded some $45,000 in attorney’s fees, to be paid out of the trust.

© 2016 M.A. Co.  All rights reserved.

A Trusted Solution for Settlement Dollars

Authored by Sean Rice

In the event of a personal injury litigation settlement, the mainstream solution has been to place some or all of the beneficiary’s proceeds into a structured settlement annuity contract. Reasons for this investment choice vary among those involved in the settlement process. Some cite the desire to protect the funds from creditors and predators. Others see safety and reliability in the monthly stream of income, while others simply express a lack of familiarity with alternative solutions such as trusts and professional trustees.

While annuity contracts can offer protection from acquisitive friends and relatives, the appeal of a guaranteed rate of return, and a reliable income stream, they can produce many significant disadvantages. While some structured settlements provide a lump sum payout in addition to the annuity, many settlements do not provide enough liquidity to access funds in case of an emergency or a large, important life event. This is due to the payout structure of an annuity. In exchange for a large, upfront one-time payment, the insurance company is legally obligated to make steady (typically monthly) payments to the beneficiary. These payments can begin immediately, or can be deferred for a certain period of time. But problems can arise when a beneficiary is in need of funds that exceed the distribution limits of the annuity contract. In these cases, the beneficiary may need to consider “surrendering” the annuity, or selling the income stream to a third party company. Either option may subject them to fees, early termination penalties, and potentially adverse tax consequences. With today’s rising costs for higher education, annuity contracts that are subject to any of these consequences can prove to be an impractical source from which to fund a minor beneficiary’s college expenses.

Annuity contracts are popular due to their promise of a reliable income stream over a long period of time. They can also be structured so that the payments from the settlement are received income tax-free by the beneficiary. While this may sound like a win-win situation, the sometimes less obvious issue is the “time value of money.” A simple calculation of the present value of many annuities often yields disappointing returns over time when one factors in inflation. If the true annuity yield is low, the income tax savings advantage for the annuity becomes irrelevant when compared to a higher-yielding, taxable investment. Annuity payments (hypothetically) growing at a guaranteed 3% return is a simple tradeoff: by agreeing to a modest but steady rate of return, the beneficiary is sacrificing potentially higher long-term yields compared to an actively managed, asset-allocation investment strategy.

Structured settlement annuities are sold as a way to make the funds last over the lifetime of the beneficiary, with some arguing that a lump sum can be spent quickly by the beneficiary. However, placing the funds into a trust and naming a professional trustee to manage those funds addresses both concerns. The trust can receive a lump sum settlement, rather than an annuity stream, and a trust company can serve as the unbiased professional trustee. The trustee has a fiduciary duty to manage the assets held in trust, and to follow the terms of the trust document on behalf of the beneficiary. The trustee assesses the risk tolerance, time horizon, and liquidity needs of the beneficiary, and formulates an appropriate investment strategy for the funds held in trust. The trustee can even provide for the beneficiary’s health, education, maintenance and support, is able to expend the funds necessary for key needs such as college tuition, a vehicle purchase, a home purchase, or medical expenses.

Trusts are an ideal solution for many different scenarios. If the beneficiary is a minor, instead of locking up the proceeds in a structured settlement, a professional trustee can manage a liquid, lump sum on his or her behalf. The trust can provide regular investment income, as well as discretionary distributions to provide for basic needs. Additionally, if the beneficiary is disabled and is (or eventually will be) eligible for governmental benefits, a lump sum settlement payout can be placed into a Special Needs Trust (SNT). SNTs allow for a beneficiary to receive supplemental support from the trust without reducing or eliminating their eligibility for means-based governmental benefits, such as Medicaid or SSI. If a settlement beneficiary is eligible for valuable governmental benefits, it is critical to ensure the proceeds of the settlement are made payable to a qualified, first-party SNT. Since the rules and regulations of SNTs are complicated, and following them correctly is so critical, naming a professional trustee instead of a family member is almost always the best solution.

Annuities can serve the needs of many individuals as a useful fixed income portion of their overall financial portfolio. But issues arise when large sums of money are placed into an annuity; sums that represent a huge portion of a client’s wealth or available resources, which is quite often the case in personal injury settlement situations. Creating a trust and naming a professional trustee provides the beneficiary with ongoing professional asset management and guidance. Moreover, the beneficiary will have access to both income and principal distributions to meet their needs, and they can benefit from creditor protection. Most importantly, beneficiary can take comfort in knowing that, over the years, they have a trusted fiduciary they can count on to guide them through life’s inevitable uncertainties.

Call Sean Rice at Garden State Trust Company to learn more about the many benefits of trusts.

(November 2016)

© 2016 M.A. Co. All rights reserved.