USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Rebecca O’Toole, Julie Sirlin Pleshivoy and William Keenen, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
As taxpayers and wealth become increasingly mobile, questions of constitutional nexus are likely to become more important rather than less. The continuing ten - sion between state efforts to tax wealth and the ability of wealth to move will be shaped not only by legisla - tion and enforcement, but also by the constitutional State tax planning has quietly become one of the most consequential parts of a wealth plan. The differences between jurisdictions have grown large enough that where a client lives, where a trust is sited and admin - istered and who holds fiduciary authority can matter more than almost any other planning choice. Domicile as a core planning variable For affluent taxpayers, domicile may be one of the most consequential state tax planning variables. A founder preparing to sell a company, an executive anticipating a large equity-compensation payout, a private equity principal expecting a carried-interest distribution, or a retiree with residences in multiple states may face materially different tax outcomes depending on which jurisdiction successfully claims domicile. In some cases, the difference can amount to millions of dollars. limits on state taxing authority. The estate planning response As a result, establishing, maintaining and defending a taxpayer’s domicile has become a core planning func - tion for clients with contacts in multiple states. Estab - lishing a new domicile requires more than obtaining a driver’s licence, registering to vote or purchasing a residence. Tax authorities generally focus on the totality of the circumstances, including where a tax - payer’s personal, social, family and economic life is centred. The taxpayer must not only establish a new permanent home, but also demonstrate that the prior domicile has been abandoned. A change of domicile, however, is often only one part of the analysis. Major liquidity events frequently raise additional questions regarding sourcing, apportion - ment and characterisation of income. States gener - ally distinguish between income derived from capital and income connected to in-state services, business operations or value created within the jurisdiction.
Therefore, changing domicile may reduce state tax exposure, but it does not necessarily eliminate it. As differences among state tax regimes continue to grow, domicile determinations have become both more valuable and more heavily scrutinised. States have strong incentives to challenge residency chang - es involving significant capital gains, business sales, carried-interest distributions or wealth transfers. Cali - fornia, for example, maintains a specialised residency and sourcing audit function devoted to these issues. Consequently, domicile planning is no longer simply about establishing residency in a new jurisdiction; it is equally about creating a factual record capable of withstanding audit and litigation scrutiny. For that reason, planning around significant liquidity events consistently requires a broader analysis than domicile alone. Transaction timing, income-sourcing rules, compensation structures, business operations and residency considerations may each affect the ulti - mate state-tax result. Trust structuring and situs planning Once a trust jurisdiction has been selected, plan - ners must determine how that jurisdiction’s tax rules will apply to the trust. Trust taxation remains highly dependent on state-specific nexus rules. The Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina Depart- ment of Revenue v Kaestner reinforced the principle that a state must have a meaningful connection to a trust before imposing tax. The practical implication is that planners must understand which trust contacts a particular state considers relevant. Some states focus primarily on trustee residence. Others emphasise ben - eficiary residence, settlor residence, place of adminis - tration, or combinations of those factors. As a result, identical trusts may produce dramatically different tax outcomes depending on where they are administered and who serves as fiduciary. For planners, the starting point is understanding which states can claim jurisdiction over a trust and why. That analysis typically requires evaluating the residence of the settlor, trustees, trust protectors and other fidu - ciaries, beneficiaries, and the location where trust administration occurs. Trust taxation often depends less on where a trust instrument declares the trust to
698 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook