Daniels v. Commissioner of Revenue Services
Syllabus
The plaintiff, the executor of the estate of the decedent, A, appealed from the trial court's judgment upholding a tax assessment imposed by the defendant, the Commissioner of Revenue Services, against A's estate. At the time of his death, A maintained homes in Connecticut, Arizona and Florida, and divided his time between them. The audit division of the Department of Revenue Services had determined that A was a resident of and domiciled in Connecticut at the time of his death and, therefore, that his estate was subject to taxation pursuant to statute (§ 12-391 (d) (1) (C)). The commissioner, through the department's appellate division, subsequently upheld the audit division's domicile determination. The executor then appealed to the Superior Court, claiming that A had died as a Florida domiciliary and that A's estate should not have been subject to taxation in Connecticut. The trial court conducted a de novo trial during which it heard evidence concerning A's personal, social and proprietary connections with Connecticut and Florida, and ultimately determined that the executor had failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that A was not a Connecticut domiciliary at the time of his death. Accordingly, the trial court concluded, inter alia, that the executor had not demonstrated that the assessment was erroneous or unreasonable. On appeal, the executor claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had improperly sustained the estate tax assessment insofar as it incorrectly concluded that A was domiciled in Connecticut at the time of his death. Held: This court rejected the commissioner's argument that it was improper for this court to consider, sua sponte, whether the trial court had applied the appropriate standard of proof for purposes of that court's determination of whether A had been domiciled in Connecticut at the time of his death. A taxpayer's burden of proof in an appeal from an estate tax assessment is an exceptional circumstance in which important
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.