From the state of Pennsylvania:
“Domicile refers to the place where a person maintains his or her permanent abode, and where he or she intends to return whenever absent.”
When Santorum is working his day job, he doesn’t intend to return to PA, where he lacks furniture. He intends to return to his digs in Virginia.
Remember one can only have 1 domicile. Now, IANAL, but it seems to me that if 1 had 2 residences, the domicile would probably be the one which contained furniture.
Your hero just made a piss-poor argument.
Now don’t get me wrong. I said I quoted tax law, which has nothing to do with residency for the purposes of state representation, or for the purposes of local school benefits.
My point (to repeat) is that residency law is complicated, and that Bricker appears to be talking out of his ass.
Really? How about a cite? Or are you just making things up? Are you sure that the residency requirements for a state Senator are not affected by state law?
I’m not.
Separately, I’m a little puzzled at your quoting, “Sec. 113. Residence of Members of Congress for State income tax laws”. It has nothing to do with residency requirements for local educational benefits or for Congressional representation.
----> Hentor “Domicile” for the purposes of Pennsylvania state taxes actually is cut and dried. So it’s safe to say that our ideological counterparts are phonies.
I haven’t been entirely fair. acsenray and Bricker are providing strong examples of modern conservative logic. It works like this:
I wish P to be true.
Therefore P is true.
Now they could have gone to my link and dug up something better. But that would involve a study of the facts, as opposed to their emotional yearnings.
But for the rest of us, let’s see what a domicile is.
From my link:
Boy. That looks involved. I guess it isn’t cut and dried: sorry Hentor. Still, I’d say the preponderance of the evidence favors “Virginia” as the domicile -again for tax purposes- ignoring the all important emotions and feelings of the modern conservative.
Now my legal interpretation might be off --maybe Santorum is required to pay PA taxes. But I still maintain that neither acsenray and Bricker have sufficient magical powers to ascertain this legal question without studying at the actual law.
I realize that this is the Pit, but I’m disappointed that we can’t have a disagreement over a simple question of law without the personal attacks and broad-brush stereotyping. If any of my interactions on this board are memorable to Bricker, then I’m sure he’s having quite a laugh, because I’m reasonably certain we’ve never agreed on any political issue and few social matters.
And I’m quite certain that nothing I’ve said in this thread justifies calling me a “conservative” or saying that I have an “emotional yearning” regarding Santorum’s residency status.
Which element of the line you quoted from me is a personal attack? I will say that your flat assertions without much in the way of support did not make me feel like you were engaging in a disagreement so much as engaging in simplistic gainsay. Nuh uh!
That tends to make me feel less than predisposed to enter into a sincere disagreement with someone.
Got that cite that federal law says a Senator automatically has residency in the place he represents, regardless of where he lives? You asserted that it automatically trumped state law, which I remain curious to hear more about.
I’m a member of the Virginia bar. So I have actually studied the law of Virginia in some detail, although admittedly my professional focus was more on the criminal side of the house. Nonethess…
For Virginia purposes, Santorum is legally a non-resident. He does not pay Virginia taxes on his income, even though he has a house and furniture in Virginia.
I don’t use magical powers to determine this, but my ability to read Virginia and federal law.
This is not a guess, or a conclusion, on my part. This is the FUCKING LAW. Santorum is not the only member of Congress to live in Virginia. This is not the first time that the situation has arisen. BY LAW, Santorum is not a resident of Virginia; if he has only one domicile, it is not his Virginia one. That’s not a guess, a wish, a hope, or a dream. That is the law.
Guin, this seems to me to be a binary situation. Legally, either his domicile is in Virginia or it’s in Pennsylvania. Bricker keeps talking about the Virginia home because that’s the jurisdiction of which he knows the laws. IF, as Bricker posted, Santorum’s domicile is not in Virginia, and he is not paying Virginia taxes, then his domicile is in Pennsylvania, and he should be paying PA taxes. Bricker has never said, in any form, that Santorum’s an all-right guy and you should just lay off because he’s doing a fine job. Bricker has only said that, according to the laws of Virginia, because of Santorum’s Congressional status, the senator is NOT a resident of Virginia.
I agree with everyone that Santorum’s a :wally for a near-infinite number of his viewpoints, actions and hypocrisies and I dearly, dearly hope to see the back end of him in November (just…not literally. Please.). And this situation with the Penn Hills tuition break and the cyberschool and everything may indeed be illegal or unethical, but the problem isn’t Bricker’s contributions to the thread. It’s everyone else’s refusal to rein in their generalities to recognize that Rick is usually giving the answer to a very narrowly-defined question, because in most cases he’s giving the LEGAL answer to that question.
I really hate being so set against folks that I usually agree with, in varying degrees, but this has turned from a rant against Santorum into a general piling-on of Bricker, and that, IMO, is beneath almost everyone in this thread.
I think it’s all well and good to give an accurate legal opinion. I think it’s a bit naive to pretend that Bricker reliably divorces his own political opinion from the answers that he gives. In this case, he cannot cite the legal basis for his opinions, and is indeed answering a narrow legal question of his own design. That is what I see as his typical practice, and that is how he regularly introduces his political bias into the equation.
Has he presented satisfactory legal information to support an argument that Santorum is a resident of Pennsylvania? He has yet to respond to repeated requests for a cite about the federal law that residency in a given place is granted to any congressperson automatically. Hell, I’m not all that convinced by the legal evidence that he has presented that Santorum is not necessarily a resident of Virginia.
Just because he is propounding a legal argument does not necessarily mean that it is an unbiased argument. Given his history of defending to the last some of the most precarious of politically biased positions (e.g. the war on Christmas), it is particularly hard to simply grant that he is offering an untainted legal opinion of this matter.
Every person has exactly one domicile (legal residence). Not zero, not two, not any other number. If Santorum owns two residences, and one is in Pennsylvania and the other is in Virginia, then if you prove that the Virginia residence is not his domicile, then you have proven that the Pennsylvania residence is his domicile.
Amen, jayjay. To restate my OP-I take no issue that Senator I-Don’t-Live-Here is not a legal, taxpaying resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It’s a shame, because he’s enjoying the benefits of living there, but isn’t ponying up to pay for them, but that’s a sub-rant. My complaint with him (among others) is that he claims to live in PA, but to even the casual observer, obviously does not. Even if the laws of PA, VA, USA, and the NCAA all permit him to have a token residence in Penn Hills, if he doesn’t actually live there, it’s intellectual dishonesty-an end run around the spirit of representing the electorate in your “home” state, all of which leads back to my original posit that Santorum = shithead.
Your characterization of “domicile” may or may not be correct, IMHO. Since you haven’t provided substantiation I remain agnostic, though my WAG agrees with you.
No, it’s not easy. It’s not mind-bendingly difficult. It’s just that the law is a little involved:
The conversation is about residency which has multiple definitions. For example, it is possible that one can be residents in two states for tax purposes. For the 4 states that I have passing familiarity with tax requirements, there is a 2 prong test, involving domicile AND another legal category. The other legal category is sometimes known as Permanent Place of Abode. In PA’s case (again for tax purposes) the second category is called, “Statutory Residence”.
Furthermore, one can be a resident of a state for some purposes, and not for others. For example, California residency requirements for the purposes of paying in-state fees are specified here, while for tax purposes the requirements are separate and different.
I’ve seen nothing in this thread which addresses the underlying issues - which are NOT about taxes NOR are they about whether Santorum pays taxes in Virginina.
I have, however, seen posters move to conclusions unsubstantiated by the facts. They even use categorical language like, “It’s easy”.
So while I remain agnostic regarding Santorum’s flouting of the law (I would guess that he’s within its letter btw) I do believe I have solid grounds for assessing the character of some of the posters here.
But I’m a liberal and American, so I am always hopeful about the possibilities of personal growth and moral reform.
Look acsenray (and Bricker for that matter). You could have made the same points and said, “Actually, insofar as residency is concerned the legal issues at least are not so clear. For example, Virginia law states…” I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
I do have a problem, however, with a blinkered discussion of Virginia tax law, wholly ignoring that the topic is Pennsylvania residency requirements for the purposes of receiving subsidies from Pennsylvania educational districts for children living in Virginia.
If you prove his Pennsylvania house * (you’re too free with the word “residence”) is not his domicile, then you have proven that the Virginia house is* his domicile. That’s exactly as easy, too, right?
Now when you consider that he doesn’t even have frickin’ furniture in the PA house, and there is no objective evidence that he’s ever even set foot in the place, it’s pretty hard to maintain that that is nonetheless his residence, right? Isn’t that “easy” too?
Wonderful. All I have to do is stop paying MA taxes and legally I won’t live here anymore, then. I doubt the judge will buy that argument from me, though.
You ain’t helpin’ yourselves, or your profession’s image for that matter, with this shit, guys. Can you at least grasp that the issue is fundamentally political, not legal, anyway?
Since I have attacked acsenray’s character, I guess I should clarify the record with his initial post on page 2:
Hm. Seems like I was wrong about acsenray’s ideological leanings. Furthermore, he deserves points (in my book) to the extent that he was defending an ideological adversary. (Again, I’m not that familiar with acsenray’s posts)
Ok, I’m going to have to retract my insults towards acsenray. (Bummer for me.)
Substantively though, I’ll repeat my assertion that legal residency is not a straightforward matter, though it isn’t rocket science either. One does, however have to refer to relevant sections of Pennsylvania state, local and Federal law, statute and precident. (Oh, and I would think that furnature and drapery actually would be relevant factors, based on Pennsylvania State’s tax booklet).
Elvis, on preview: Yeah, and the law isn’t simple anyway.
I’m sorry, Santorum’s scum, but… look, why should he have furniture in a house he’s not living in? Do you expect him to maintain two houses? His job requires him to live in DC. Where’s the big deal? I don’t see the problem with this at all.
If he’s using that house to claim residency in Pennsylvania, then hell yes, I expect him to maintain two houses! Let him come here when he’s on vacation, or not working, or whatever.
His job also requires that he be a resident of the state he’s elected to represent, IIRC. A resident not just in name alone.
Look, I understand Bricker is explaining Virginia law, because that’s his area of expertise. Fine. But for the sake of this discussion, it is PENNSYLVANIA law we are concerned with.
Our Washington reps need a home near DC, but presumably meetings with their constituents are also part of their job requirements. I’m not sure how Santorum and others juggle their work on the Hill, fundraising and local meetings.
(As my link indicated, Santorum is a champion fundraiser, but that’s another matter.)
Still, the issue is whether Santorum’s local PA school district should cut a check to another PA online charter school to educate his kids, who live in Virginia. The bit about furnature arises when Santorum makes claims about people stalking his family in his PA residence.
