USA – CONNECTICUT Law and Practice Contributed by: William Kambas, Lawton Leung and Samantha Kopf, Withers
An individual can file a complaint for dissolution of a marriage or for legal separation any time that either spouse has established residence in Connecticut. A decree dissolving the marriage or granting legal sepa- ration may be entered in the following three scenarios: • one of the spouses has been a resident of Con- necticut for at least 12 months prior to the date of the complaint or date of the decree; • one of the spouses was domiciled in Connecti- cut at the time of the marriage and had returned to Connecticut with the intention of permanently remaining in Connecticut prior to the complaint; or • the cause for the complaint arose after either spouse moved into Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-44). 2.2 Income Tax Residency Connecticut applies an income tax residency frame- work that distinguishes between domicile‑based residency and statutory residency. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12‑701 (a)(1), an individual is considered a Connecticut resident for income tax purposes if the person: • is domiciled in Connecticut; or • meets the statutory resident test by maintaining a Connecticut permanent place of abode for the entire tax year and spending more than 183 days in the state. For those claiming non-residency despite historic Connecticut ties, the regulation (Conn. Agencies Regs. § 12‑701 (a)(1)‑1) sets out a narrow exception: a Connecticut domiciliary will be treated as a non- resident only if the individual: • maintains no Connecticut abode during the full tax year; • maintains a permanent abode outside Connecticut for the full year; and • spends no more than 30 days in Connecticut (dur- ing the full year). The regulation also adopts strict day‑counting rules, generally treating any part of a day spent in Connect- icut as a Connecticut day. Connecticut’s approach mirrors its domicile principles in the estate tax context:
long‑term patterns of life, family ties, property deci- sions and personal connections matter far more than administrative steps. Courts examine the individual’s conduct holistically to determine whether the taxpayer truly abandoned Connecticut as a permanent home. The leading authority on this issue remains Amen v Law (Conn. Super. Ct. Tax Session 2005). In Amen , taxpayers moved to Belgium for an expatriate corpo- rate assignment. Despite several years abroad, the court held they did not abandon Connecticut domicile because they retained their Connecticut home (leased on short‑term arrangements), maintained ties to family and social institutions, and expected to return after the assignment. The court emphasised that a foreign posting undertaken for employment – particularly one expected to be temporary – does not by itself establish a new foreign domicile. However, the Amen taxpay- ers qualified as non-residents for 1997 because they had no Connecticut abode that year, had a permanent abode outside of Connecticut and spent fewer than 30 days in Connecticut, satisfying the three‑part regula- tory exception. Another significant Connecticut decision is Chatterjee v Commissioner (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003; aff’d 2006 on jurisdiction), which involved taxpayers maintaining a weekend home in Greenwich while spending substan- tial time in New York and India. After being determined to be New York domiciliaries for New York audit pur- poses, the taxpayers sought Connecticut refunds on the basis that they were not Connecticut residents, but the courts (the Connecticut Supreme Court affirm- ing the Connecticut trial court) concluded that owning a residence in Connecticut or filing Connecticut tax returns does not necessarily establish a domicile but rather a totality of circumstances, and the conclusion was that Connecticut courts may deny tax relief where the taxpayer fails to meet statutory requirements. The case highlights how multi‑state factual patterns, con- flicting state determinations and secondary Connecti- cut residences complicate claims of non-residency. Together, Amen and Chatterjee illustrate Connecticut’s consistent focus on conduct, continuity and genuine intent. Even when individuals have a substantial over- seas or multi‑state presence, the state will look closely at retained Connecticut ties – including homes, fam-
232 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook