Ohio Personal Income Tax Archives - Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC https://www.bdblaw.com/category/ohio-personal-income-tax/ Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:42:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://www.bdblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/cropped-android-chrome-256x256-32x32.png Ohio Personal Income Tax Archives - Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC https://www.bdblaw.com/category/ohio-personal-income-tax/ 32 32 Are you sure you’re an Ohio non-resident? Bright-line residency effectively muted: Ohio Supreme Court rules taxpayers must satisfy the burdensome common-law domicile test for Ohio income tax even when residency affidavit filed. https://www.bdblaw.com/are-you-sure-youre-an-ohio-non-resident-bright-line-residency-effectively-muted-ohio-supreme-court-rules-taxpayers-must-satisfy-the-burdensome-common-law-domicile-test-for-ohio-income-tax-e/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=are-you-sure-youre-an-ohio-non-resident-bright-line-residency-effectively-muted-ohio-supreme-court-rules-taxpayers-must-satisfy-the-burdensome-common-law-domicile-test-for-ohio-income-tax-e Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:55:44 +0000 https://www.bdblaw.com/?p=9841 The Ohio Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to individuals claiming nonresident status for Ohio personal income tax under the bright-line residency statute. Cunningham v. Testa, 2015-Ohio-2744. The Ohio statute provides that an individual is irrebuttably presumed to be a nonresident if the individual satisfies three requirements: (1) maintains an abode outside Ohio for theRead More

The post Are you sure you’re an Ohio non-resident? Bright-line residency effectively muted: Ohio Supreme Court rules taxpayers must satisfy the burdensome common-law domicile test for Ohio income tax even when residency affidavit filed. appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
The Ohio Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to individuals claiming nonresident status for Ohio personal income tax under the bright-line residency statute. Cunningham v. Testa, 2015-Ohio-2744. The Ohio statute provides that an individual is irrebuttably presumed to be a nonresident if the individual satisfies three requirements: (1) maintains an abode outside Ohio for the entire year; (2) satisfies the contact period test (recently increased to less than 212 Ohio contact periods); and (3) files an affidavit verifying domicile is outside Ohio.  R.C. 5747.24(B). Bright-line residency, originally enacted in 1993, is intended to streamline residency determinations which under the common-law domicile test are extremely fact intensive.

Under the previous interpretations of the bright-line residency statute, an individual filing the required affidavit was considered a nonresident provided the two factual statements in the affidavit were true – the taxpayer maintained a non-Ohio abode and had less than the stated Ohio contact periods (182 prior to 2015). It was believed all other facts were irrelevant, even if the taxpayer would have been considered an Ohio resident under the common-law domicile test. This is no longer the case. The Supreme Court held that the presumption is not binding when the Tax Commissioner “has a substantial basis for rejecting the claim of non-Ohio domicile” that is supported by “specific information that warranted the finding.”

In Cunningham, the taxpayer signed a homestead exemption application for his Cincinnati residence under penalties of perjury attesting that he was domiciled in Ohio. This contradictory statement meant his residency affidavit contained a false statement – that he was not domiciled in Ohio. Due to the false statement, the non-residency presumption was no longer irrebuttable and actually required the taxpayer to meet the common-law residency test. The Court then considered a bevy of additional facts in concluding the common-law test was not met – that the taxpayer voted in Ohio; held an Ohio driver’s license; was born, raised, and educated in Ohio; was married and raised a family in Ohio; and generally had mailed delivered to Ohio.

Quoting the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision, the dissent points out this decision “essentially renders the ‘bright-line’ non-residency status… moot, as the commissioner could always challenge the veracity of the statement that the taxpayer was not domiciled in Ohio.” The question now becomes what constitutes a “substantial basis” for disputing the affidavit’s non-residency statement and how specific must the Tax commissioner’s information be to support this basis. Does it require a contradictory statement sworn to under penalties of perjury, as in Cunningham, or is any fact supporting non-residency, such as registering a vehicle with Ohio, sufficient? The only certain protections taxpayers have are those facts which the Tax Commissioner cannot consider under O.A.C. § 5703-7-16(A).

This decision is contrary to Governor Kasich’s policy to reduce Ohio individual income tax obligations through reduced rates, minimizing tax on small-business owners, and increasing the permissible presence under the bright-line residency statute. It will have significant implications for taxpayers claiming non-Ohio residency, but having multiple residences, such as retirees with significant investment / intangible income that split time between Ohio and another state. We will post a follow-up article with planning tips that individuals should consider to increase the likelihood their non-resident status will be recognized under this new interpretation of the bright-line statute based upon our substantial experience supporting non-resident status under the common-law domicile test. If you have any questions, contact Steve Dimengo, Rich Fry, or Casey Davis.

Contact us.

The post Are you sure you’re an Ohio non-resident? Bright-line residency effectively muted: Ohio Supreme Court rules taxpayers must satisfy the burdensome common-law domicile test for Ohio income tax even when residency affidavit filed. appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
Municipal Income Tax – SERP Constitutes Exempt Pension Income https://www.bdblaw.com/municipal-income-tax-serp-constitutes-exempt-pension-income/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=municipal-income-tax-serp-constitutes-exempt-pension-income Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:53:42 +0000 http://bdblaw.studiodev.net/municipal-income-tax-serp-constitutes-exempt-pension-income/ Municipalities are given the power to tax by the Ohio Constitution – commonly referred to as the Home Rule. This power can be, and has been, limited by the Ohio General Assembly under Chapter 718 of the Ohio Revised Code. Additionally, municipalities often limit the income subject to taxation by its own ordinances, with aRead More

The post Municipal Income Tax – SERP Constitutes Exempt Pension Income appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
Municipalities are given the power to tax by the Ohio Constitution – commonly referred to as the Home Rule. This power can be, and has been, limited by the Ohio General Assembly under Chapter 718 of the Ohio Revised Code. Additionally, municipalities often limit the income subject to taxation by its own ordinances, with a common exclusion for pensions. Ohio municipalities have put increasing emphasis on taxing employment benefits supposedly earned while working in or a resident of the city, even if the taxpayer receives the income years after last working in the city or when he/she is no longer a resident. See e.g., Boyer v. St. Bernard Municipal Bd. Of Appeal (June 23, 2009), B.T.A. No. 2007-K-139; and Wardrop v. Middletown Income Tax Review Bd. (Oct. 13, 2008), 2008-Ohio-5298 (Ohio App. 12 Dist.).

In a pro-taxpayer decision, the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals recently ruled that a taxpayer’s receipt of benefits under a supplement executive retirement plan (SERP) after retirement, when no longer a resident, were not taxable. In this case, the taxpayer argued the SERP constituted a non-taxable pension under the Shaker Heights Codified Ordinances. Even though the SERP was not expressly referred to as a pension, the BTA found that the SERP met the common meaning thereof – generally speaking, “any plan sponsored by an employer that provides for post-retirement income that’s designed to supplement their income for life” according to expert William Dunn. Accordingly, the income at issue was excluded from taxation under Shaker Heights’ own ordinance.

The post Municipal Income Tax – SERP Constitutes Exempt Pension Income appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
InvestOhio – Personal Income Tax Credit for Investors in Ohio Small Businesses https://www.bdblaw.com/investohio-personal-income-tax-credit-for-investors-in-ohio-small-businesses/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=investohio-personal-income-tax-credit-for-investors-in-ohio-small-businesses Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:40:23 +0000 http://bdblaw.studiodev.net/investohio-personal-income-tax-credit-for-investors-in-ohio-small-businesses/ Added at the last minute, the recently enacted Ohio Budget Bill (Am. Sub. H.B. 153) included a tax credit for individuals against their Ohio personal income taxes for investments in qualifying Ohio small business enterprises. An eligible small business enterprises must have: (1) less than $50 million in total assets or less than $10 inRead More

The post InvestOhio – Personal Income Tax Credit for Investors in Ohio Small Businesses appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
Added at the last minute, the recently enacted Ohio Budget Bill (Am. Sub. H.B. 153) included a tax credit for individuals against their Ohio personal income taxes for investments in qualifying Ohio small business enterprises. An eligible small business enterprises must have: (1) less than $50 million in total assets or less than $10 in annual sales; and (2) 50 full-time equivalent Ohio based employees, or half of all its full-time equivalent employees located in Ohio. The credit equals 10% of the qualifying investment, limited to $1 million per individual investor ($2 million for spouses filing jointly).

An eligible investor is an individual, estate or trust subject to Ohio personal income tax making a cash investment in a qualifying small business enterprise. Within six months of the investment, the small business enterprise must invest in or incur the cost of tangible personal property, motor vehicles, real property or intangible personal property used in business primarily in Ohio, or compensation for newly-hired or retained employees for whom the enterprise must withhold Ohio income tax (excluding increased compensation for owners, officers and managers). The investor may not sell or dispose of the investment until the end of the applicable holding period, which is two years for investments made between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2013 and five years for investments made on or after July 1, 2013.

The nonrefundable credit is claimed in the tax year that includes the last day of the holding period and may be carried forward up to seven years. To qualify for the InvestOhio small business credit, the investor (or the qualifying enterprise on behalf of the investor) must apply to the Ohio Director of Development for a small business investment certificate. Certificates will be issued in the order in which the applications are received.

 

For more information on whether you may qualify for the InvestOhio small business credit, or how to apply for the credit, please contact us.

The post InvestOhio – Personal Income Tax Credit for Investors in Ohio Small Businesses appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
Ohio Income Tax Residency: Not So Clear for Athletes/Entertainers with Multiple Homes https://www.bdblaw.com/ohio-income-tax-residency-not-so-clear-for-athletesentertainers-with-multiple-homes/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ohio-income-tax-residency-not-so-clear-for-athletesentertainers-with-multiple-homes Sat, 17 Jul 2010 01:43:28 +0000 http://bdblaw.studiodev.net/ohio-income-tax-residency-not-so-clear-for-athletesentertainers-with-multiple-homes/ It’s no secret athletes and entertainers are attracted to no-income tax states, such as Florida, Texas and Nevada.  Recently, the tax savings offered by these states was highly publicized as a motivating factor for the departure of Northeast Ohio’s brightest star. Avoiding Ohio’s combined state and local income tax rate (up to 9%) offers aRead More

The post Ohio Income Tax Residency: Not So Clear for Athletes/Entertainers with Multiple Homes appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
It’s no secret athletes and entertainers are attracted to no-income tax states, such as Florida, Texas and Nevada.  Recently, the tax savings offered by these states was highly publicized as a motivating factor for the departure of Northeast Ohio’s brightest star. Avoiding Ohio’s combined state and local income tax rate (up to 9%) offers a substantial incentive for athletes and entertainers to become Ohio nonresidents. By properly supporting a change in residency, nearly all of the athlete’s income, including his salary, earnings from endorsements and investment income, will avoid Ohio income tax.  However, establishing Ohio nonresident status for an athlete with continuing connections to Ohio (or, frankly, any individual with multiple residences) is not as simple as presented by the national media. This post addresses two situations: 1) an athlete who has always resided in Ohio signs with a team outside Ohio, but continues to maintain an Ohio home with immediate family residing in Ohio; and 2) an athlete that grew up and lived outside Ohio comes to play for an Ohio based team, but retains a residence in his “home” state.

Unless the irrebuttable presumption of non-Ohio residency applies, the athlete’s residency for Ohio personal income tax purposes is determined by the common law “domicile” test. One’s domicile is his permanent legal residence intended to be used for an indefinite period and to which, when absent, the person intends to ultimately return. The key focus is the athlete’s subjective intent as to his permanent residence – where he intends to remain indefinitely.

In the first example, assume the athlete plays for a team in a no-income tax state, but  retains a luxurious Ohio home where his family continues to reside and to which the athlete will return in the offseason. The athlete may also wish to participate in or hold charitable events in Ohio. In order to overcome the presumption of Ohio residency due to the retention of an Ohio home, the athlete must take certain steps to evidence his change in intent or bear the risk of remaining an Ohio resident for income tax purposes. Actions and public statements inconsistent with the athlete’s change in intent may lead to a challenge of his resident status.

In similar situations, albeit involving individuals with modest livings, taxpayers have been found to retain their Ohio residency even though they spent a majority of time outside Ohio for employment purposes, when the employment is temporary and the individual’s family stays in Ohio. One case even concluded that an individual’s five-year employment outside Ohio was temporary because he always intended to return to Ohio.

In the second hypothetical, assume the athlete grew up and attended college in a no-income tax state but ultimately plays professionally for an Ohio team. The athlete purchases an Ohio residence where he resides in-season but continues to maintain an offseason home in the no-income tax state where his family primarily resides. Despite spending a significant amount of time in Ohio, the athlete intends to ultimately return to his home state after his tenure with the Ohio team ends. While the athlete’s intent may appear clear – not to be domiciled in Ohio – this intent may be scrutinized if, again, his actions or public statements are inconsistent.

Although there is no cookie-cutter approach, through our substantial experience with Ohio personal income taxes and residency matters, we can outline and maintain a plan tailored to the athlete’s unique circumstances to support his bona fide intent to be domiciled in a no- or low-income tax state, despite maintaining a secondary Ohio residence and other connections to the state. Obviously, it is very advantageous to develop and implement this plan in conjunction with the individual’s change in domicile, rather than addressing it after the individual’s domicile is challenged.

The post Ohio Income Tax Residency: Not So Clear for Athletes/Entertainers with Multiple Homes appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
Snowbirds: Watch Out For Ohio’s “Contact Period” Test! https://www.bdblaw.com/snowbirds-watch-out-for-ohios-contact-period-test/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=snowbirds-watch-out-for-ohios-contact-period-test Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:24:58 +0000 http://bdblaw.studiodev.net/snowbirds-watch-out-for-ohios-contact-period-test/ Ohio has adopted a unique test for determining who is considered an Ohio resident for individual income taxes.  Based upon the number of  “contact periods” an individual has in Ohio during a given year, a presumption is created as to the individual’s residency.  A “contact period” occurs when an individual is in Ohio for anyRead More

The post Snowbirds: Watch Out For Ohio’s “Contact Period” Test! appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>
Ohio has adopted a unique test for determining who is considered an Ohio resident for individual income taxes.  Based upon the number of  “contact periods” an individual has in Ohio during a given year, a presumption is created as to the individual’s residency.  A “contact period” occurs when an individual is in Ohio for any period of time on two consecutive days, while being away overnight from the individual’s non-Ohio residence.  Under this test, an individual is irrebuttably presumed not to be an Ohio resident if he/she: 1) had a non-Ohio abode for the entire year; 2) had less than 183 Ohio contact periods during the year; and 3) timely filed an Affidavit of Non-Ohio Residency/Domicile with the Ohio Tax Commissioner in  the following year.  Failure to file the Affidavit will cause the individual to be presumed to be an Ohio resident.

The “contact period” test often arises with respect to retirees that purchase a residence “down south”, while retaining their Ohio residence and continuing to spend significant time in the state – so-called “dual residents.”  Since the taxpayer has the burden of proving the number of non-Ohio “contact periods” he/she has during the year, it is crucial to keep complete records, perhaps even a daily journal, of those days spent outside of Ohio.  If you are contemplating moving out of the state, but retaining your Ohio residence, you should contact an Ohio state tax attorney  to confirm the necessary proof and records to be maintained to support the presumption that you are no longer an Ohio resident.

However, it should be noted that the “contact period” test normally will not apply to transition years (the first year in which the non-Ohio residence is acquired), as this test does not apply to part-year Ohio residents.

The post Snowbirds: Watch Out For Ohio’s “Contact Period” Test! appeared first on Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC.

]]>