Question

The author thou questioned Fowler’s case since the court drew analysis based on their unsuccessful attempt to obtain Florida driver’s license, register the car, register as Florida voter and their intention of being Florida residence as from January 20, 2006. It failed to attribute the sale of stock on February 3, 2006, where Mrs. Fowler served as Assistant Secretary for three years in North Carolina. The charitable contributions after the sale of the business in 2006 and during that year, the taxpayers spent most of 2006 - 2007 days in North Carolina before finalizing the proposal. The court and IRS'S brings out the contradiction in the governing principles of determining an individual's domicile. Since thou, the Fowlers changed their address to Florida they continued using certain correspondence and billing and bank statements from North Carolina. The insurance policy that they purchased on their North Carolina home for a period of July 31, 2006 to July 31, 2007 had a stipulated location that dwelling is not seasonal or secondary. The court failed to consider Fowlers' behavior prior to January 20,2006 and emphasized on a single observed event, hence ignoring taxpayers’ subsequent conduct.

QUESTION: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT? EXPLAIN

Answer 1

From the above given case, it can said that it is not agreeable with the court's decision. This decision can be based on the following events -

1. The court gave its decision on a single event - Fowler's failed to get a Florida driver licence, and registration as a Florida voter. However, Mrs. Fowler has served as Assistant Secretary for 3 years in North Carolina. She had sold stocks on 3rd February, 2006.

2. The court and IRS themselves provide contradictory statements. Additionally, the Fowlers were taxpayers themselves when they were in North Carolina.

3. Their insurance policy was for a period of 1 year, that is, from July 31, 2006 to July 31, 2007. It situpated that their dwelling is not seasonal nor secondary. So, they were the citizens of North Carolina themselves.

Thus, the court's decision is not applicable as it is on the basis of a single observed event, and has ignored the taxpayers' subsequent conduct.