Ausnit v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ausnit v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York

212 A.D.2d 911, 623 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1621

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 16, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 911 (Ausnit v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ausnit v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York, 212 A.D.2d 911, 623 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Tax Law § 2016) to review a determination of respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal which sustained personal income tax assessments imposed under Tax Law article 22 and the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal’s determination denying the petition for redetermination of deficiencies or for a refund of personal income taxes imposed for the year 1985 should be upheld. It is well settled that the burden of proof is upon the petitioner to prove an erroneous deficiency assessment by clear and convincing evidence. Here, the Tribunal correctly ruled that petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had changed his domicile from New York to Connecticut during the year in issue. Moreover, the Tribunal rationally found that petitioner failed to alternatively establish that he had spent less than 183 days in New York during that period. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Tribunal’s conclusions in this matter.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Tax Law § 2016) to review a determination of respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal which sustained personal income tax assessments imposed under Tax Law article 22 and the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal’s determination denying the petition for redetermination of deficiencies or for a refund of personal income taxes imposed for the year 1985 should be upheld. It is well settled that the burden of proof is upon the petitioner to prove an erroneous deficiency assessment by clear and convincing evidence. Here, the Tribunal correctly ruled that petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had changed his domicile from New York to Connecticut during the year in issue. Moreover, the Tribunal rationally found that petitioner failed to alternatively establish that he had spent less than 183 days in New York during that period. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Tribunal’s conclusions in this matter.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 911, 623 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ausnit-v-tax-appeals-tribunal-of-the-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack