BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION
Petitioners, : ORDER
AUDITING DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 92-1231
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, :
: Account No. XXXXX
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission upon a Petition for Reconsideration, dated XXXXX, filed by the Petitioner as a result of the Commission's final decision dated XXXXX.
1. Utah Administrative Rule R861-1A-5(P) provides that a Petition for Reconsideration "will allege as grounds for reconsideration either a mistake in law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence." Under this rule, the Tax Commission may exercise its discretion in granting or denying a Petition for Reconsideration.
2. Petitioners offer further comment and emphasis on certain findings of fact already determined by the Commission.
3. Petitioners argue that the Commission's final decision is founded upon an incorrect interpretation of current case law. Petitioners contend that a person can move to another place for an indefinite period of time and entertain a floating intention to return and still be found to have changed domiciles. (Gilbert v. Davies, 235 U.S. 561, 569 (1915).)
DECISION AND ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is the decision and order of the Utah State Tax Commission that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
The Commission finds the Gilbert case not controlling for several reasons. First, the Gilbert court was deciding an issue of federal diversity jurisdiction. Secondly, the facts in Gilbert are significantly different than the facts of the present case. Third, Gilbert is a 1915 decision. Many more cases have been decided on the issue of domicile since then, propounding a more definitive analysis of how to determine domicile.
DATED this 22nd day of April, 1993.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
R. H. Hansen Roger O. Tew
Joe B. Pacheco S. Blaine Willes