My position is that Rahm could have signed a form stating that he was a resident of Chicago, but if he moved to D.C. with an intent to remain permanently he's a resident of D.C., regardless of what form he signed. What matters, at least for purposes of the tax code, is the taxpayer's intent. Given his testimony that was credited, he used the wrong form. He's a resident of Illinois.
Those aren't my facts. Those are the facts as found by the Board of Election Commissioners and credited by the appeals court.
My point is that, for purposes of Illinois tax law, he's was resident of Illinois, not a part-year resident. Apply the facts to the definitions and it's clear.
Well, we should be able to all agree that Rahm was resident of Chicago before he moved to D.C. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. And I'm not confusing anything. For purposes of the tax code, domicile is key to whether a person is a resident of Illinois or not.
Reside does not mean live for purposes of Illinois tax law.
I'm not ignoring anything.
How do you figure Rahm is a part-year resident under the tax code. If the mere signing of a form were outcome determinative, the letter ruling that I posted would be incorrect. In the letter ruling, the individual erroneously filed as a part-year resident because he intended to (and did) return to Illinois. If your position were correct, the fact that he filed a part-year resident return would mean that he is a part-year resident regardless of whether he intended to return to Illinois or not, but that's just not the way it works.
