From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ausnit v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 16, 1995
212 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 16, 1995


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.


Summaries of

Matter of Ausnit v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 16, 1995
212 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Ausnit v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PETER C. AUSNIT, Petitioner, v. TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Feb 16, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 168

Citing Cases

Matter of Hoffmann v. Commr. of Tax. Fin

Petitioner now seeks review in this Court pursuant to CPLR article 78. Petitioner asserts that "[t]here is no…

Gaul v. Motorola, Inc.

The court properly denied that part of the motions of Motorola and defendant Cannon Design, Inc. (Cannon),…