You are here: / / NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE...
,

NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that New York’s tax scheme did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs argued New York permitted double taxation of their intangible income by both New York, where they were “statutory residents.” and Connecticut, where they domiciled. The First Department rejected plaintiffs’ contentions “that this taxation burdens interstate commerce, particularly by inhibiting their free movement into New York State to work and their ability to buy or lease a home in New York due to the risk of being deemed a resident and subject to double taxation of intangible income… [and] that New York’s tax scheme fails the ‘internal consistency’ test, which requires fair apportionment of income between states and nondiscrimination against interstate commerce …”. The First Department found that the controlling New York case, Matter of Tamagni v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y. (91 NY2d 530 [1998]…), had not been abrogated by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v Wynne (___ US ___, 135 S Ct 1787 [2015]):

… [T]he income at issue … in the instant case … was not “out-of-state income” but intangible investment income, which “has no identifiable situs,” “cannot be traced to any jurisdiction outside New York,” and is “subject to taxation by New York as the State of residence” … . Edelman v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2018 NY Slip Op 04672, First Dept (6-26-18)

​TAX LAW (NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (TAX LAW, COMMERCE CLAUSE, (NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT))/COMMERCE CLAUSE (TAX LAW, NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT))/INTANGIBLE INCOME (TAX LAW, NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
STATE DESIGN DEFECT AND FAILURE TO WARN ACTION IS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION ACT (HMTA), CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
DAMAGES AWARDED 69-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT RESTAURANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE VALET PARKING SERVICE WITH WHICH IT CONTRACTED IF THE RESTAURANT HAD THE ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF THE CONTRACTOR, IF ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLY, AND UNDER AN AGENCY THEORY, THE RESTAURANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).
THE 1ST DEPARTMENT, OVERRULING PRECEDENT AND JOINING THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, DETERMINED INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES NEED NOT BE NAMED IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
Evidence Not Sufficient to Demonstrate Spanish Document Was an Enforceable Judgment; In Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint (CPLR 3213) There Is No Impediment to Plaintiff’s Supplementing Its Papers After Defendant’s Response
Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute of Limitations
VERDICT FINDING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT BUT HER NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURY WAS INCONSISTENT AND AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT ABSCONDED DURING TRIAL, WAS INVOLUNTARILY RETURNED ON A WARRANT 20... DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES...