{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030548068283917342, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016172506738544475, 'mean_word_length': 5.258426966292135, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
When Everything Matters, Nothing Matters: Minnesota's Unprincipled Approach for Determining Domicile in Tax Disputes, and a Path Forward

This article addresses Minnesota’s amorphous domicile rule, which is codified in Minnesota Rule 8001.0300, used in tax disputes. Current application of the rule is anything but principled — or simple. There are too many sub-rules and presumptions, and the 26-factor “test” is unwieldy. Many of the sub-rules simply restate the domicile definition or capture circumstances better left to a factor analysis. In other words, many of the sub-rules are unnecessary and confusing to the process. The presumptions, other than the continuing-domicile presumption, are superfluous and are best recast as factors. Finally, the current factor test provides no guidance on what factors should be considered more determinative of a person’s domicile, even though common sense recognizes that some factors better signify a person’s domicile. This article attempts to remedy Minnesota's unprincipled approach to determining domicile in tax disputes by proposing a redraft of Rule 8001.0300.