lundinget
ux
new
york
tax
appealstribunal
argued
november
decided
january
held
absence
substantial
reason
difference
treatment
new
york
nonresidents
violates
privileges
immunities
clause
denying
nonresidents
income
tax
deduction
alimony
payments
pp
considerable
discretion
formulating
income
tax
laws
power
must
exercised
within
limits
federal
constitution
confronted
challenge
privileges
immunities
clause
law
distinguishing
residents
nonresidents
state
may
defend
position
demonstrating
substantial
reason
difference
treatment
ii
discrimination
practiced
nonresidents
bears
substantial
relationship
state
objective
piper
thus
new
york
must
defend
substantial
justification
different
treatment
nonresidents
including
explanation
discrimination
relates
state
justification
shaffer
carter
pp
precedent
respecting
privileges
immunities
clause
challenges
nonresident
income
tax
provisions
informs
review
state
justification
travis
yale
towne
mfg
austin
new
hampshire
make
clear
clause
prohibits
state
denying
nonresidents
general
tax
exemption
provided
residents
shaffer
supra
travis
supra
establish
may
limit
nonresidents
deductions
business
expenses
nonbusiness
deductions
based
relationship
expenses
property
income
latter
decisions
provide
considerable
leeway
aligning
nonresidents
tax
burden
activities
neither
decisions
austin
fairly
read
hold
clause
permits
categorically
deny
personal
deductions
nonresident
taxpayer
without
substantial
justification
difference
treatment
pp
respondents
attempt
justify
limitation
nonresidents
deduction
alimony
payments
asserting
state
jurisdiction
activities
rejected
state
contention
shaffer
travis
required
consider
expenses
wholly
linked
personal
activities
outside
new
york
suffice
pp
new
york
appeals
decision
upholding
contain
reasonable
explanation
substantial
justification
discriminatory
provision
case
decision
based
goodwin
state
tax
commission
aff
appeal
dism
questionable
relevance
since
involved
state
tax
provision
analogous
rendered
new
york
adopted
present
system
nonresident
taxation
called
doubt
subsequent
decision
unlike
new
york
appeals
takes
little
comfort
fact
inclusion
alimony
deduction
nonresident
federal
adjusted
gross
income
reduces
nonresident
tax
liability
new
york
effectively
takes
alimony
deduction
back
apportionment
percentage
used
determine
actual
tax
owed
summarizing
holding
present
case
new
york
appeals
explained
serious
argument
petitioners
alimony
deductions
legitimate
business
expenses
approximate
equality
tax
treatment
required
constitution
satisfied
precedent
however
read
suggest
tax
schemes
allowing
nonresidents
deduct
business
expenses
per
se
constitutional
accordingly
inquiry
state
justification
light
practical
effect
required
pp
ii
respondents
arguments
supply
adequate
justification
state
suggestion
summary
dismissals
goodwin
cases
dispositive
rejected
dismissals
precedential
value
opinions
briefing
oral
argument
moreover
none
cases
involved
unique
problem
complete
denial
deductions
nonresidents
alimony
payments
also
unavailing
state
reliance
statement
one
former
tax
commissioners
legally
recognize
existence
york
source
income
state
recognize
deductions
personal
nature
unconnected
production
income
new
york
good
reason
question
whether
statement
actually
rationale
given
evidence
state
currently
permits
nonresidents
amounts
pro
rata
deduction
personal
expenses
alimony
allowed
deduct
pro
rata
share
alimony
payments
moreover
satisfied
state
argument
need
consider
impact
disallowing
nonresidents
deduction
alimony
paid
merely
alimony
expenses
personal
nature
particularly
light
inequities
result
nonresident
alimony
obligations
derives
nearly
income
new
york
scenario
may
typical
see
travis
supra
requiring
nonresidents
pay
tax
similarly
situated
residents
solely
basis
whether
nonresidents
liable
alimony
payments
violates
rule
substantial
equality
treatment
required
austin
supra
pp
iii
also
rejects
respondents
claim
justified
state
adoption
income
splitting
regime
creates
parity
tax
treatment
spouses
dissolved
marital
relationship
allowing
alimony
payer
exclude
payment
income
requiring
recipient
report
corresponding
increase
income
section
disallows
nonresidents
entire
alimony
expenses
without
consideration
whether
new
york
income
tax
paid
alimony
recipients
respondents
analysis
begs
question
whether
substantial
reason
difference
treatment
therefore
appreciably
distinct
state
assertion
justification
required
concern
business
expenses
pp
iv
basis
record
assertions
several
respondents
state
amici
de
minimis
effect
taxpayer
comity
among
typically
give
residents
deduction
credit
income
taxes
paid
taxpayer
pay
roughly
overall
tax
constitutionality
one
state
statutes
affecting
nonresidents
depend
upon
statutes
austin
supra
reversed
remanded
delivered
opinion
stevens
scalia
souter
thomas
breyer
joined
ginsburg
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
kennedy
joined
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
christopher
lunding
et
ux
petitioners
new
york
tax
appeals
tribunal
etal
writ
certiorari
appeals
new
york
january
justice
delivered
opinion
privileges
immunities
clause
art
iv
provides
citizens
state
shall
entitled
privileges
immunities
citizens
several
case
consider
whether
provision
new
york
law
effectively
denies
nonresident
taxpayers
income
tax
deduction
alimony
paid
consistent
constitutional
command
conclude
new
york
adequately
justified
discriminatory
treatment
nonresidents
effected
tax
law
challenged
provision
violates
privileges
immunities
clause
new
york
law
requires
nonresident
individuals
pay
tax
net
income
new
york
real
property
tangible
personalty
net
income
employment
business
trade
professional
operations
new
york
see
tax
law
mckinney
provisions
enacted
new
york
legislature
tax
income
determined
according
method
takes
consideration
relationship
nonresident
taxpayer
new
york
source
income
taxpayer
total
income
reported
federal
government
tax
law
mckinney
computation
income
tax
nonresidents
owe
new
york
involves
several
steps
first
nonresidents
must
compute
tax
liability
resided
new
york
ibid
starting
point
computation
federal
adjusted
gross
income
accordance
internal
revenue
code
includes
deduction
alimony
payments
various
adjustments
federal
adjusted
gross
income
nonresidents
derive
resident
taxable
income
resident
tax
computed
using
tax
rates
applicable
residents
resident
tax
computed
nonresidents
derive
apportionment
percentage
applied
amount
based
ratio
new
york
source
income
federal
adjusted
gross
income
tax
law
denominator
ratio
federal
adjusted
gross
income
includes
deduction
alimony
paid
virtue
incorporated
new
york
law
tax
law
numerator
new
york
source
income
includes
net
income
property
employment
business
operations
new
york
operation
specifically
disallows
deduction
alimony
paid
last
step
computation
nonresidents
multiply
resident
tax
apportionment
percentage
thereby
computing
actual
new
york
income
tax
liability
upper
limit
apportionment
percentage
thus
circumstances
nonresident
new
york
income
include
deduction
alimony
paid
exceeds
federal
adjusted
gross
income
nonresident
liable
resident
tax
section
enacted
part
new
york
tax
reform
reduction
act
nonresidents
allowed
claim
pro
rata
deduction
alimony
expenses
pursuant
new
york
appeals
decision
holding
new
york
tax
law
reflected
policy
decision
nonresidents
allowed
nonbusiness
deductions
residents
deductions
allowed
nonresidents
proportion
new
york
income
income
sources
friedsam
state
tax
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
memorandum
governor
ch
state
legis
describing
former
tax
law
permitted
nonresidents
deduct
pro
rata
portion
itemized
deductions
including
alimony
represent
ing
fairest
equitable
solution
problem
many
years
standing
respecting
taxation
nonresidents
working
new
york
although
legislative
history
explaining
rationale
enactment
clearly
overruled
friedsam
requirement
new
york
permit
nonresidents
pro
rata
deduction
alimony
payments
petitioners
christopher
lunding
wife
barbara
residents
connecticut
year
christopher
lunding
earned
substantial
income
practice
law
new
york
year
also
incurred
alimony
expenses
relating
dissolution
previous
marriage
accordance
new
york
law
petitioners
filed
new
york
nonresident
income
tax
return
report
new
york
earnings
petitioners
comply
limitation
however
instead
deducting
pro
rata
portion
alimony
paid
computing
new
york
income
based
determination
approximately
christopher
business
income
attributable
new
york
audit
division
new
york
department
taxation
finance
denied
deduction
recomputed
petitioners
tax
liability
recalculation
without
pro
rata
alimony
deduction
petitioners
owed
additional
new
york
income
taxes
plus
interest
petitioners
appealed
additional
assessment
new
york
division
tax
appeals
asserting
discriminates
new
york
nonresidents
violation
privileges
immunities
equal
protection
commerce
clauses
federal
constitution
unsuccessful
administrative
appeals
constitutional
arguments
addressed
petitioners
commenced
action
appellate
division
new
york
pursuant
tax
law
mckinney
new
york
held
violates
privileges
immunities
clause
relying
upon
decision
friedsam
state
tax
app
div
dept
affirmed
new
york
appeals
see
supra
app
div
dept
according
reasoning
although
disparity
treatment
nonresidents
permitted
valid
reasons
exist
privileges
immunities
clause
pro
scribes
conduct
substantial
reason
discrimination
beyond
mere
fact
nonresidents
citizens
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
thus
despite
intervening
enactment
concluded
exists
substantial
reason
disparate
treatment
leaving
criterion
whether
payor
resident
nonresident
quoting
friedsam
app
respondents
appealed
new
york
appeals
reversed
lower
ruling
upheld
constitutionality
decision
new
york
appeals
found
shaffer
carter
travis
yale
towne
mf
established
limiting
taxation
nonresidents
income
sufficient
justification
similarly
limiting
deductions
expenses
derived
sources
producing
income
constitutionality
tax
law
determined
based
effect
noted
privileges
immunities
clause
mandate
absolute
equality
tax
treatment
quoted
piper
explaining
clause
violated
substantial
reason
difference
treatment
ii
discrimination
practiced
nonresidents
bears
substantial
relationship
state
objective
applying
principles
determined
constitutionality
allowing
nonresidents
deduct
personal
expenses
settled
goodwin
state
tax
app
div
aff
appeal
dism
new
jersey
resident
unsuccessfully
challenged
new
york
denial
tax
deductions
respecting
new
jersey
real
estate
taxes
interest
payments
medical
expenses
life
insurance
premiums
lunding
adopted
two
rationales
goodwin
concluding
adequately
justified
first
reasoned
new
york
residents
subject
burden
taxation
income
regardless
source
entitled
benefit
full
deduction
expenses
second
concluded
deductions
represent
personal
expenses
nonresident
taxpayer
appropriately
allocated
state
residence
based
justifications
distinguished
case
goodwin
decision
golden
tully
new
york
policy
granting
moving
expense
deduction
residents
denying
nonresidents
found
violate
privileges
immunities
clause
rationale
besides
taxpayer
nonresidence
proffered
justify
discrepancy
treating
residents
nonresidents
according
golden
decided
solely
narrow
ground
tax
commission
answer
bill
particulars
offered
nonresidence
explanation
disallowance
nonresidents
moving
expenses
also
distinguished
friedsam
supra
ground
enacted
overrule
decision
practical
effect
noted
nonresidents
denied
benefit
alimony
deduction
since
claim
full
amount
payments
computing
hypothetical
tax
liability
resident
tax
law
rejected
petitioners
contention
lack
legislative
history
explaining
importance
finding
substantial
reasons
disparity
tax
treatment
apparent
face
statutory
scheme
ibid
also
rejected
petitioners
claims
violates
equal
protection
commerce
clauses
ibid
claims
recognizing
ruling
new
york
appeals
case
creates
clear
conflict
oregon
decision
wood
department
revenue
tension
south
carolina
ruling
spencer
south
carolina
tax
aff
equally
divided
granted
certiorari
conclude
absence
substantial
reason
difference
treatment
nonresidents
violates
privileges
immunities
clause
denying
nonresidents
income
tax
deduction
alimony
payments
ii
object
privileges
immunities
clause
strongly
constitute
citizens
one
people
plac
ing
citizens
state
upon
footing
citizens
far
advantages
resulting
citizenship
concerned
paul
virginia
wall
one
right
thereby
secured
right
citizen
state
remove
carry
business
another
without
subjected
property
person
taxes
onerous
citizens
latter
state
subjected
shaffer
supra
see
also
toomer
witsell
ward
maryland
wall
course
nonresidents
may
required
make
ratable
contribution
taxes
support
government
shaffer
duty
one
pay
taxes
onerous
effect
imposed
like
circumstances
upon
citizens
state
ibid
see
also
ward
maryland
wall
nonresidents
subjected
higher
tax
excise
exacted
law
permanent
residents
nonetheless
practical
matter
privileges
immunities
clause
affords
assurance
precise
equality
taxation
residents
nonresidents
particular
state
differences
may
inherent
taxing
scheme
given
ike
many
constitutional
provisions
privileges
immunities
clause
absolute
toomer
supra
bsolute
equality
impracticable
taxation
maxwell
bugbee
state
legislatures
must
draw
distinctions
light
local
needs
considerable
discretion
formulating
tax
policy
madden
kentucky
thus
question
whether
state
taxing
law
contravenes
rights
secured
federal
constitution
decision
must
depend
upon
mere
question
form
construction
definition
upon
practical
operation
effect
tax
imposed
shaffer
supra
see
also
louis
southwestern
arkansas
hen
question
whether
tax
imposed
state
deprives
party
rights
secured
federal
constitution
must
regard
substance
rather
form
controlling
test
found
operation
effect
law
applied
enforced
state
short
noted
equal
protection
context
inequalities
result
hostile
discrimination
occasionally
incidentally
application
tax
system
arbitrary
classification
sufficient
defeat
law
maxwell
supra
described
balance
rule
substantial
equality
treatment
resident
nonresident
taxpayers
austin
new
hampshire
nonresidents
subject
different
treatment
must
reasonable
ground
diversity
treatment
travis
see
also
travellers
ins
connecticut
enough
state
secured
reasonably
fair
distribution
burdens
explained
toomer
privileges
immunities
clause
bars
discrimination
citizens
substantial
reason
discrimination
beyond
mere
fact
citizens
preclude
disparity
treatment
many
situations
perfectly
valid
independent
reasons
thus
inquiry
case
must
concerned
whether
reasons
exist
whether
degree
discrimination
bears
close
relationship
inquiry
must
also
course
conducted
due
regard
principle
considerable
leeway
analyzing
local
evils
prescribing
appropriate
cures
thus
confronted
challenge
privileges
immunities
clause
law
distinguishing
residents
nonresidents
state
may
defend
position
demonstrating
substantial
reason
difference
treatment
ii
discrimination
practiced
nonresidents
bears
substantial
relationship
state
objective
piper
concern
integrity
privileges
immunities
clause
reflected
standard
review
substantially
rigorous
applied
state
tax
distinctions
among
say
forms
business
organizations
different
trades
professions
austin
supra
thus
new
york
appeals
state
brief
respondent
commissioner
taxation
finance
appropriately
acknowledge
state
must
defend
substantial
justification
different
treatment
nonresidents
including
explanation
discrimination
relates
state
justification
review
state
justification
informed
precedent
respecting
privileges
immunities
clause
challenges
nonresident
income
tax
provisions
shaffer
carter
upheld
oklahoma
denial
deductions
losses
nonresidents
subject
oklahoma
tax
instate
income
explained
difference
arises
naturally
extent
jurisdiction
state
two
classes
cases
regarded
unfriendly
unreasonable
discrimination
residents
may
exert
taxing
power
income
sources
whether
within
without
state
accords
corresponding
privilege
deducting
losses
wherever
accrue
nonresidents
jurisdiction
extends
property
owned
within
state
business
trade
profession
carried
therein
tax
income
derived
sources
hence
obligation
accord
deduction
reason
losses
elsewhere
incurred
holding
emphasized
practical
effect
provision
concluding
nonresident
treated
onerously
resident
particular
fact
called
upon
make
ratable
contribution
support
state
government
austin
shaffer
involved
challenge
state
denial
deductions
record
shaffer
discloses
oklahoma
law
specified
nonresidents
liable
oklahoma
income
tax
entire
net
income
property
owned
every
business
trade
profession
carried
oklahoma
express
statutory
bar
preventing
nonresidents
claiming
nonbusiness
exemptions
deductions
available
resident
taxpayers
see
tr
record
shaffer
carter
pp
chapter
oklahoma
house
bill
see
also
brief
behalf
appellant
shaffer
carter
trial
oklahoma
attorney
general
asserted
appellant
personal
exemptions
resident
oklahoma
travis
yale
towne
mfg
connecticut
corporation
business
new
york
sought
enjoin
enforcement
new
york
nonresident
income
tax
laws
behalf
employees
residents
connecticut
new
jersey
opinion
issued
day
shaffer
affirmed
shaffer
holding
state
may
limit
deductions
nonresidents
related
production
income
see
travis
describing
shaffer
settling
unconstitutional
discrimination
citizens
confining
deduction
expenses
losses
case
taxpayers
connected
income
arising
sources
within
taxing
state
record
travis
clarifies
many
expenses
losses
nonresidents
new
york
law
limited
ordinary
neces
sary
business
expenses
depreciation
business
assets
depletion
natural
resources
oil
gas
timber
time
travis
decided
new
york
law
also
allowed
nonresidents
pro
rata
deduction
various
nonbusiness
expenses
interest
paid
based
proportion
new
york
source
income
total
income
deduction
taxes
paid
income
taxes
extent
taxes
connected
new
york
income
deduction
uncompensated
losses
sustained
new
york
resulting
limited
circumstances
namely
nonbusiness
transactions
entered
profit
casualty
losses
residents
nonresidents
entitled
deduction
contributions
charitable
organizations
organized
laws
new
york
tr
record
travis
yale
towne
mfg
state
new
york
personal
income
tax
law
pp
thus
statutory
provisions
disallowing
nonresidents
tax
deductions
issue
travis
essentially
mirrored
issue
shaffer
tied
nonresidents
deductions
activities
another
provision
new
york
nonresident
tax
law
challenged
travis
survive
scrutiny
privileges
immunities
clause
however
evincing
concern
practical
effect
animated
shaffer
decision
travis
struck
provision
denied
nonresidents
exemption
tax
certain
threshold
income
even
though
new
york
law
allowed
nonresidents
corresponding
credit
new
york
taxes
event
paid
resident
income
taxes
state
providing
similar
credit
new
york
residents
rejected
argument
rule
case
occasional
accidental
inequality
due
circumstances
personal
taxpayer
denial
exemption
salvaged
upon
theory
untaxed
income
derived
sources
home
elsewhere
outside
state
new
york
corresponding
amount
upon
residents
state
exempt
taxation
new
york
act
discrimination
conditioned
upon
existence
untaxed
income
rash
assume
taxable
new
york
law
class
receiving
additional
income
outside
sources
equivalent
amount
exemptions
accorded
citizens
new
york
denied
id
finally
rejected
speculative
constitutionally
unsound
argument
adjoining
new
york
adopt
income
tax
event
injustice
citizens
part
new
york
avoided
providing
similar
exemptions
similarly
conditioned
id
austin
recent
decision
reviewing
state
taxation
nonresidents
considered
commuter
tax
imposed
new
hampshire
effect
tax
nonresidents
working
state
described
previous
decisions
including
shaffer
travis
establishing
rule
substantial
equality
treatment
citizens
taxing
state
nonresident
taxpayers
new
hampshire
tax
failed
travis
austin
make
clear
privileges
immunities
clause
prohibits
state
denying
nonresidents
general
tax
exemption
provided
residents
shaffer
travis
establish
may
limit
nonresidents
deductions
business
expenses
nonbusiness
deductions
based
relationship
expenses
property
income
latter
decisions
provide
considerable
amount
leeway
aligning
tax
burden
nonresidents
instate
activities
neither
austin
fairly
read
holding
privileges
immunities
clause
permits
categorically
deny
personal
deductions
nonresident
taxpayer
without
substantial
justification
difference
treatment
iii
case
new
york
acknowledges
right
nonresidents
pursue
livelihood
terms
substantial
equality
residents
question
issue
presented
case
likely
affect
many
individuals
given
fact
common
nonresidents
enter
new
york
city
pursue
livelihood
matter
common
knowledge
necessity
due
geographical
situation
new
york
city
close
proximity
neighboring
many
thousands
men
women
residents
citizens
go
daily
homes
city
earn
livelihood
travis
attempting
justify
discrimination
nonresidents
effected
respondents
assert
state
jurisdiction
nonresidents
activities
limitation
nonresidents
deduction
alimony
payments
valid
invoking
shaffer
travis
state
maintains
required
consider
expenses
wholly
linked
personal
activities
outside
new
york
brief
respondent
commissioner
taxation
finance
must
consider
whether
assertion
suffices
substantially
justify
challenged
statute
looking
first
rationale
new
york
appeals
adopted
upholding
find
decision
reasonable
explanation
substantial
justification
discriminatory
provision
although
purported
apply
inquiry
derived
toomer
piper
end
justification
based
rationales
borrowed
another
case
goodwin
state
tax
app
div
aff
appeal
dism
new
jersey
resident
challenged
new
york
denial
deductions
real
estate
taxes
mortgage
interest
new
jersey
home
medical
expenses
life
insurance
premiums
challenge
case
however
provision
new
york
tax
law
substantially
similar
considered
travis
nonresident
taxpayers
allowed
deductions
extent
connected
taxable
income
arising
sources
within
state
app
quoting
tax
law
analogous
provision
plainly
limits
nonresidents
deduction
alimony
payments
irrespective
whether
payments
might
somehow
relate
new
income
although
goodwin
rationale
concerning
new
york
disallowance
nonresidents
deduction
life
insurance
premiums
medical
expenses
assumed
expenses
made
taxpayer
course
personal
activities
must
regarded
taken
place
state
residence
also
found
expenses
embodie
governmental
policy
designed
serve
legitimate
social
end
ibid
namely
encourage
new
york
citizens
obtain
life
insurance
protection
help
new
york
citizens
bear
burden
extraordinary
illness
accident
id
case
new
york
appeals
similarly
described
petitioners
alimony
expenses
wholly
linked
personal
activities
outside
state
articulate
policy
basis
save
reference
discussion
petitioners
equal
protection
clause
claim
state
policy
taxing
gains
realized
losses
incurred
nonresident
new
york
taxing
residents
income
quite
possibly
policy
basis
exists
given
time
goodwin
decided
new
york
appears
allowed
nonresidents
deduction
alimony
paid
long
recipient
new
york
resident
required
include
alimony
income
see
tax
law
several
years
preceding
enactment
new
york
law
permitted
nonresidents
claim
pro
rata
deduction
alimony
paid
regardless
recipient
residence
see
friedsam
interpreting
tax
law
reliance
goodwin
new
york
appeals
also
failed
account
fact
broad
tax
reforms
new
york
adopted
new
system
nonresident
taxation
ties
income
tax
liability
nonresidents
tax
paid
residents
indeed
nonresident
tax
liability
determines
tax
rate
total
tax
owed
based
federal
adjusted
gross
income
sources
new
york
sources
computing
resident
tax
liability
nonresidents
new
york
permitted
consider
every
deduction
new
york
residents
entitled
business
personal
computation
apportionment
percentage
new
york
chosen
isolate
specific
deduction
nonresidents
alimony
paid
entirely
nondeductible
circumstances
goodwin
case
new
york
appeals
acknowledged
friedsam
state
policy
statutes
favored
parity
pro
rata
basis
allowance
personal
deductions
residents
nonresidents
friedsam
supra
accordingly
light
questionable
relevance
goodwin
new
york
current
system
taxing
nonresidents
agree
new
york
ap
peals
substantial
reasons
disparity
tax
treatment
apparent
face
also
take
little
comfort
fact
noted
new
york
appeals
deny
nonresidents
benefit
alimony
deduction
deduction
included
federal
adjusted
gross
income
one
components
nonresident
computation
new
york
tax
liability
see
finding
seems
contrary
impression
new
york
commissioner
taxation
finance
expressed
advisory
opinion
rosenblatt
transfer
binder
cch
tax
commissioner
explained
effect
allowance
alimony
deduction
denominator
disallowance
numerator
petitioner
get
benefit
proportional
deduction
alimony
payments
made
spouse
event
respondents
never
argued
effects
anything
denial
nonresidents
alimony
deductions
though
inclusion
alimony
deduction
nonresident
federal
adjusted
gross
income
reduces
nonresident
tax
liability
new
york
effectively
takes
alimony
deduction
back
apportionment
percentage
used
determine
actual
tax
owed
numerator
percentage
include
deduction
alimony
paid
denominator
include
deduction
summarizing
holding
new
york
appeals
explained
serious
argument
petitioners
alimony
deductions
legitimate
business
expenses
approximate
equality
tax
treatment
required
constitution
satisfied
greater
tax
scheme
constitutionally
mandated
precedent
however
read
suggest
tax
schemes
allowing
nonresidents
deduct
business
expenses
per
se
constitutional
must
accordingly
inquire
state
justification
light
practical
effect
turning
respondents
arguments
initial
matter
reject
state
suggestion
summary
dismissals
several
cases
dispositive
question
presented
case
see
brief
respondent
commissioner
taxation
finance
although
noted
ur
summary
dismissals
taken
rulings
merits
sense
rejected
specific
challenges
presented
left
undisturbed
judgment
appealed
also
explained
precedential
value
opinion
briefing
oral
argument
merits
washington
confederated
bands
tribes
yakima
nation
citations
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
unusual
find
appropriate
give
full
consideration
question
subject
previous
summary
action
ibid
particularly
courts
arrived
dissimilar
outcomes
event
none
cases
state
relies
involved
unique
problem
presented
complete
denial
deductions
nonresidents
alimony
payments
context
new
york
overall
scheme
nonresident
taxation
anomaly
new
york
tax
law
currently
permits
nonresidents
avail
amounts
pro
rata
deduction
personal
expenses
besides
alimony
new
york
law
also
allowed
nonresidents
deduct
pro
rata
share
alimony
payments
new
york
state
tax
commissioner
advisory
opinion
rosenblatt
indicates
may
intended
overrule
friedsam
see
rosenblatt
supra
section
specifically
reversed
friedson
sic
state
tax
commission
allowed
alimony
deduction
nonresident
according
formula
allocation
itemized
deductions
nonresident
certainly
new
york
appeals
found
effect
removing
impairment
imposed
friedsam
thereby
implying
disavowal
state
previous
policy
substantial
equality
residents
nonresidents
policy
expressed
friedsam
acknowledged
principles
equality
fairness
underlying
privileges
immunities
clause
merely
impairment
however
although
state
considerable
freedom
establish
adjust
tax
policy
respecting
nonresidents
end
results
must
course
comply
federal
constitution
provision
imposing
disparate
taxation
upon
nonresidents
must
appropriately
justified
explained
power
tax
unlimited
validity
established
mere
imposition
tax
mullaney
anderson
justify
state
refers
statement
presented
new
york
taxation
finance
subcommittee
house
judiciary
committee
statement
commissioner
explained
ince
legally
recognize
existence
york
source
income
felt
general
recognize
deductions
main
personal
nature
unconnected
production
income
new
york
brief
respondent
commissioner
taxation
finance
quoting
statement
hon
joseph
murphy
taxation
income
nonresidents
hearing
res
et
al
et
al
subcommittee
house
committee
judiciary
yet
good
reason
question
whether
statement
actually
rationale
given
substantial
evidence
contrary
history
state
treatment
nonresidents
alimony
deductions
current
treatment
personal
deductions
moreover
extent
cited
testimony
sug
gests
circumstances
exist
state
denial
personal
deductions
nonresidents
constrained
reject
premise
certainly
found
travis
nonresidents
must
allowed
tax
exemptions
parity
residents
suggested
regarding
nonresidents
nonbusiness
expenses
deduction
may
limited
proportion
expenses
rationally
related
income
activities
see
shaffer
practical
matter
interpretation
privileges
immunities
clause
travis
shaffer
implies
may
effectively
limit
nonresidents
deduction
certain
personal
expenses
based
reason
simple
fact
expenses
clearly
related
residence
another
state
incorporate
analysis
face
according
new
york
appeals
legislative
history
see
moreover
situations
operate
require
nonresidents
pay
significantly
tax
identically
situated
residents
example
nonresident
earnings
derived
primarily
new
york
sources
effect
raise
tax
apportionment
percentage
thereby
requiring
individual
pay
tax
identically
situated
resident
solely
disallowed
alimony
deduction
certain
circumstances
taxpayer
even
liable
new
york
taxes
approaching
even
exceeding
net
income
doubt
similar
circumstances
arise
respecting
apportionment
tax
purposes
income
expenses
based
activities
without
violation
privileges
immunities
clause
case
shaffer
despite
petitioner
attempt
argue
allowed
offset
net
business
income
taxed
oklahoma
business
losses
incurred
see
one
thing
however
anomalous
situation
arise
individual
greater
profits
business
activities
property
owned
one
particular
state
another
entirely
different
situation
presented
facially
inequitable
essentially
unsubstantiated
taxing
scheme
denies
nonresidents
tax
deduction
alimony
payments
surely
personal
matter
see
gilmore
arguably
bear
relationship
taxpayer
overall
earnings
alimony
payments
also
differ
types
personal
deductions
mortgage
interest
property
tax
payments
whose
situs
determined
based
location
underlying
property
thus
unlike
expenses
discussed
shaffer
alimony
payments
easily
characterized
losses
elsewhere
incurred
rather
alimony
payments
reflect
obligation
duration
determined
large
measure
individual
income
generally
wherever
earned
alimony
obligation
may
personal
nature
viewed
geographically
fixed
manner
expenses
business
losses
mortgage
interest
payments
real
estate
taxes
might
accordingly
contrary
dissent
suggestion
post
propose
required
allow
nonresidents
deduction
manner
personal
expenses
taxes
paid
mortgage
interest
relating
residence
imply
invariably
must
provide
nonresidents
manner
tax
credits
available
residents
precedent
allows
adopt
justified
reasonable
distinctions
residents
nonresidents
provision
tax
benefits
whether
form
tax
deductions
tax
credits
case
however
satisfied
state
argument
need
consider
impact
disallowing
nonresidents
deduction
alimony
paid
merely
alimony
expenses
personal
nature
particularly
light
inequities
result
nonresident
alimony
obligations
derives
nearly
income
new
york
scenario
may
typical
see
travis
requiring
nonresidents
pay
tax
similarly
situated
residents
solely
basis
whether
nonresidents
liable
alimony
payments
violates
rule
substantial
equality
treatment
described
austin
respondents
also
propose
consistent
new
york
taxation
families
generally
brief
respondent
commissioner
taxation
finance
suggested
one
purpose
new
york
tax
law
changes
adopt
regime
income
splitting
spouse
marital
relationship
taxed
equal
share
total
income
marital
unit
ibid
citing
mcintyre
pomp
state
income
tax
treatment
residents
nonresidents
privileges
immunities
clause
state
tax
notes
similar
effect
achieved
case
marital
dissolution
allowing
payer
alimony
exclude
payment
income
requiring
recipient
report
corresponding
increase
income
treatment
accords
provisions
adopted
federal
government
means
adjusting
tax
burdens
alimony
payers
without
deduction
alimony
paid
face
tax
liability
greater
remaining
income
payment
alimony
see
committee
report
revenue
act
federal
system
one
resident
taxpayer
pays
alimony
another
payer
alimony
deduction
offset
alimony
income
reported
recipient
leading
parity
allocation
overall
tax
burden
section
however
disallows
nonresidents
entire
alimony
expenses
consideration
given
whether
new
york
income
tax
paid
recipients
respondents
explain
concerns
simply
irrelevant
new
york
taxation
nonresidents
xtending
benefit
income
splitting
nonresidents
inappropriate
tax
policy
grounds
nonresidents
taxed
new
york
slice
derived
new
york
sources
brief
respondent
commissioner
taxation
finance
analysis
however
begs
question
whether
substantial
reason
difference
treatment
therefore
appreciably
distinct
state
assertion
justification
required
concern
business
expenses
indeed
fail
see
new
york
disregard
residence
alimony
recipient
anything
point
potential
inequities
operation
certainly
concept
income
splitting
works
former
spouses
residents
state
one
spouse
receives
tax
deduction
corresponding
reported
income
thereby
making
state
treasury
whole
adjustment
differences
spouses
respective
tax
rates
scheme
also
results
equivalent
allocation
total
tax
liability
one
spouse
longer
resident
state
spouse
retains
burden
paying
resident
income
taxes
due
state
share
split
income
benefit
income
splitting
disappears
however
state
neither
spouse
resides
essentially
imposes
surtax
alimony
tax
increase
new
york
imposes
extreme
new
york
resident
receives
alimony
payments
nonresident
new
york
taxpayer
results
windfall
state
recipient
pays
taxes
alimony
nonresident
payer
denied
deduction
although
treatment
may
accord
federal
government
treatment
taxpayers
nonresident
aliens
see
reasonableness
scheme
national
level
different
issue
implicate
privileges
immunities
clause
guarantee
individuals
may
migrate
live
work
finally
several
amici
respondents
assert
de
minimis
effect
taxpayer
comity
among
imposing
income
tax
typically
provide
deduction
credit
residents
income
taxes
paid
brief
state
ohio
et
al
accordingly
argument
runs
things
equal
taxpayer
pay
roughly
total
tax
two
difference
taxpayer
resident
state
get
new
york
less
revenue
ibid
basis
assertion
record
us
fact
year
question
connecticut
imposed
income
tax
petitioners
earned
income
reply
brief
petitioners
may
add
constitutionality
one
state
statutes
affecting
nonresidents
depend
upon
present
configuration
statutes
another
state
austin
see
also
travis
iv
sum
find
state
inability
tax
nonresident
entire
income
sufficient
justify
discrimination
imposed
considerable
discretion
formulating
income
tax
laws
power
must
exercised
within
limits
federal
constitution
tax
provisions
im
posing
discriminatory
treatment
nonresident
individuals
must
reasonable
effect
based
substantial
justification
fact
nonresidence
although
privileges
immunities
clause
prevent
requiring
nonresidents
allocate
income
deductions
based
activities
manner
described
shaffer
travis
opinions
automatically
guarantee
state
may
disallow
nonresident
taxpayers
every
manner
nonbusiness
deduction
assumption
amounts
inevitably
allocable
state
taxpayer
resides
alimony
obligations
unlike
expenses
related
activities
conducted
particular
state
property
held
personal
obligation
generally
correlates
taxpayer
total
income
wealth
alimony
bears
relationship
earnings
regardless
source
manner
new
york
taxes
nonresidents
based
allocation
resident
tax
liability
imposes
upon
nonresidents
income
effect
new
york
graduated
tax
rates
also
imports
corresponding
element
fairness
allowing
nonresidents
pro
rata
deduction
types
personal
expenses
seem
consistent
taxing
scheme
notions
fairness
state
allow
nonresidents
pro
rata
deduction
alimony
paid
well
circumstances
find
respondents
presented
substantial
justification
categorical
denial
alimony
deductions
nonresidents
state
failure
provide
cursory
justification
smacks
effort
penaliz
citizens
subjecting
heavier
taxation
merely
citizens
toomer
frankfurter
concurring
thus
hold
unwarranted
denial
citizens
privileges
immunities
enjoyed
citizens
new
york
accordingly
decision
new
york
appeals
reversed
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
christopher
lunding
et
ux
petitioners
new
york
tax
appeals
tribunal
etal
writ
certiorari
appeals
new
york
january
justice
ginsburg
chief
justice
justice
kennedy
join
dissenting
new
york
follow
federal
government
lead
according
income
tax
deduction
alimony
resident
taxpayers
tax
practice
conclude
offend
nondiscrimination
principle
embodied
privileges
immunities
clause
article
iv
therefore
dissent
opinion
put
case
proper
perspective
helpful
recognize
alimony
payments
surely
personal
matter
ante
addition
alimony
payments
unlike
personal
obligation
ante
federal
tax
law
mirrored
state
tax
regimes
alimony
included
recipient
gross
income
payer
allowed
corresponding
deduction
payments
taxable
recipient
scheme
best
seen
determination
respect
choice
taxable
person
rather
rules
relating
definition
income
expense
effect
alimony
payer
treated
conduit
gross
income
legally
belongs
alimony
recipient
divorce
decree
chirelstein
federal
income
taxation
ed
hereinafter
chirelstein
see
also
bittker
mcmahon
federal
income
taxation
individuals
ed
unlike
personal
deductions
deduction
alimony
payments
best
viewed
method
designating
proper
taxpayer
given
amount
income
rather
tax
allowance
particular
expenditures
combination
allowing
deduction
alimony
payer
requiring
alimony
recipient
include
payment
gross
income
treat
part
payer
income
though
received
subject
offsetting
duty
pay
new
york
applies
scheme
resident
alimony
payers
new
york
tax
law
mckinney
declares
case
nonresident
new
york
source
income
alimony
deduction
federal
law
provides
shall
constitute
deduction
derived
new
york
sources
thus
petitioner
christopher
lunding
former
spouse
new
york
residents
alimony
payments
included
former
spouse
gross
income
state
well
federal
income
tax
purposes
receive
deduction
payments
words
new
york
tax
income
twice
fact
however
though
lunding
derives
substantial
part
gross
income
new
york
sources
former
spouse
reside
connecticut
means
urges
new
york
may
tax
alimony
payments
compared
new
york
divorced
spouses
short
lunding
seeks
windfall
escape
double
taxation
total
exemption
new
york
tax
income
question
beneficence
nonresidents
earning
income
new
york
insists
privileges
immunities
clause
article
iv
constitution
demands
explaining
new
york
must
favor
connecticut
residents
new
york
residents
lunding
invites
comparisons
broken
one
former
spouses
resides
new
york
resides
elsewhere
first
lunding
former
spouse
moved
connecticut
new
york
new
york
count
alimony
payments
income
nonetheless
deny
residence
deduction
case
new
york
effectively
tax
income
twice
first
payer
giving
deduction
recipient
taxing
payments
gross
income
course
lunding
situation
one
may
question
standing
demand
new
york
take
nothing
order
offset
state
arguably
excessive
taxation
others
engagingly
lunding
compares
situation
new
york
resident
pays
alimony
former
spouse
living
another
state
case
new
york
permit
new
yorker
deduct
alimony
payments
even
though
recipient
pays
tax
new
york
income
transferred
new
york
choice
according
lunding
deny
alimony
deduction
new
yorker
whose
former
spouse
resides
state
else
extend
deduction
apparently
agrees
least
holds
new
york
adequately
justified
line
drawn
ante
condemnation
new
york
law
seems
unwarranted
applied
universe
former
marital
partners
like
lunding
former
spouse
reside
state
new
york
attribution
income
someone
either
payer
recipient
hardly
unfair
true
occasional
new
york
resident
afforded
deduction
though
former
spouse
resides
elsewhere
chased
new
york
tax
collector
occasional
new
york
alimony
recipient
taxed
despite
nonresidence
former
spouse
new
york
legitimately
assume
cases
lundings
case
payer
recipient
reside
state
moreover
cases
state
system
overly
generous
new
york
payer
nonresident
recipient
insufficiently
generous
nonresident
payer
new
york
recipient
systematic
discrimination
discretely
nonresidents
pairs
former
spouses
cases
include
resident
nonresident
reviewing
state
tax
classifications
previously
held
sufficient
privileges
immunities
clause
state
secured
reasonably
fair
distribution
burdens
intentional
discrimination
made
travellers
ins
connecticut
travellers
upheld
state
tax
facially
discriminatory
nonresidents
held
stock
connecticut
corporations
owed
tax
state
full
value
holdings
resident
stockholders
entitled
deduction
proportionate
share
corporation
connecticut
real
estate
state
tax
system
whole
discriminatory
although
residents
entitled
deduct
share
corporation
connecticut
real
estate
state
taxes
required
pay
municipal
taxes
property
nonresidents
owed
municipal
taxes
see
municipal
taxes
varied
across
state
residents
municipalities
might
end
paying
lower
taxes
nonresidents
nonetheless
mere
fact
given
year
actual
workings
system
may
result
larger
burden
properly
held
vitiate
system
different
result
might
obtain
succeeding
year
results
varying
calls
made
different
localities
local
expenses
travellers
held
tax
classifications
survive
privileges
immunities
scrutiny
provide
rough
parity
treatment
residents
nonresidents
see
also
austin
new
hampshire
privileges
immunities
precedents
establis
rule
substantial
equality
treatment
holding
accords
observation
baldwin
fish
game
ome
distinctions
residents
nonresidents
merely
reflect
fact
nation
composed
individual
permitted
distinctions
prohibited
hinder
formation
purpose
development
single
union
tax
classification
systematically
discriminate
nonresidents
said
hinder
formation
purpose
development
single
union
see
mcintyre
pomp
income
splitting
deduction
alimony
payments
state
tax
notes
urging
privileges
immunities
clause
require
new
york
forgo
objective
served
alimony
rules
payer
recipient
residents
state
simply
results
may
less
ideal
one
parties
alimony
transaction
resident
nonresident
affirm
judgment
new
york
appeals
consistent
precedent
cast
doubt
today
decision
state
tax
provisions
long
considered
secure
ii
viewing
case
one
discretely
alimony
accept
new
york
law
fair
adaptation
state
level
current
system
notes
shies
away
approach
see
ante
expressing
particular
concern
double
taxation
extreme
case
new
york
resident
receives
alimony
payments
nonresident
taxpayer
ante
instead
treats
alimony
one
among
several
personal
expenses
state
makes
deductible
significantly
approach
conforms
historic
pattern
historically
alimony
child
support
treated
personal
expenses
nondeductible
payer
includable
recipient
income
successive
federal
statutory
enactments
beginning
allowed
deduction
corresponding
inclusion
alimony
payments
continuing
nondeductibleexcludable
treatment
child
support
payments
ault
comparative
income
taxation
structural
analysis
accepting
arguendo
personal
expense
deduction
lieu
income
attribution
categorization
alimony
however
read
precedent
lead
direction
takes
lunding
analysis
essentially
embraces
core
principle
personal
deductions
matter
must
allowed
proportion
new
york
state
income
bears
total
income
tr
oral
arg
never
privileges
immunities
clause
teaches
arly
century
enunciated
principle
state
may
limit
nonresident
expenses
losses
deductions
incurred
connection
production
income
within
taxing
state
hellerstein
hellerstein
state
taxation
two
companion
shaffer
carter
travis
yale
towne
mfg
considered
respectively
oklahoma
new
york
schemes
nonresident
income
taxation
challenged
violating
privileges
immunities
clause
upholding
oklahoma
scheme
declaring
new
york
scheme
impermissibly
discriminatory
established
least
three
principles
first
state
may
impose
general
income
taxes
upon
citizens
residents
whose
persons
subject
control
may
necessary
consequence
levy
duty
like
char
acter
onerous
effect
upon
incomes
accruing
property
business
within
state
occupations
carried
therein
shaffer
accord
travis
second
state
may
deny
nonresidents
personal
exemptions
exemptions
uniformly
afforded
residents
see
personal
exemptions
typically
granted
set
amount
taxpayers
regardless
income
hellerstein
reflections
state
taxation
nonresident
personal
income
rev
hereinafter
hellerstein
effectively
create
zero
tax
bracket
amount
exemption
see
chirelstein
denial
exemptions
thus
amounts
rate
increase
nonresidents
practice
impermissible
longstanding
constitutional
interpretation
see
chalker
birmingham
northwestern
ward
maryland
wall
see
also
austin
new
hampshire
privileges
immunities
clause
violated
effect
state
taxe
incomes
nonresidents
working
new
hampshire
new
york
denied
nonresidents
personal
exemption
provided
residents
travis
held
state
scheme
abridgement
privileges
immunities
clause
finally
deductions
specific
expenses
treated
differently
blanket
exemptions
issue
travis
state
need
afford
nonresidents
deductions
extends
residents
shaffer
upheld
oklahoma
rules
governing
deduction
business
losses
oklahoma
residents
deduct
losses
wherever
incurred
nonresidents
deduct
losses
incurred
within
state
explained
disparate
treatment
arises
naturally
extent
jurisdiction
state
two
classes
cases
regarded
unfriendly
unreasonable
discrimination
shaffer
state
may
tax
residents
income
sources
whether
within
without
state
tax
nonresidents
activities
ibid
hence
obligation
accord
nonresidents
deduction
reason
losses
elsewhere
incurred
ibid
stated
principle
even
clearly
travis
unconstitutional
discrimination
citizens
confining
deduction
expenses
losses
case
nonresident
taxpayers
connected
income
arising
sources
within
taxing
state
centuryschoolbook
italic
shaffer
travis
plainly
establish
need
allow
nonresidents
deduct
business
expenses
application
cases
deductions
personal
expenses
however
less
clear
one
hand
travis
broad
language
read
suggest
business
expenses
deductions
must
extend
nonresidents
hand
neither
shaffer
travis
upheld
scheme
denying
nonresidents
deductions
personal
expenses
leading
commentator
concluded
nothing
either
shaffer
travis
opinions
indicates
whether
addressing
personal
well
business
deductions
hellerstein
rare
exception
however
lower
courts
applied
shaffer
travis
equal
force
personal
business
deductions
new
york
decision
goodwin
state
tax
app
div
dept
aff
appeal
dismissed
want
substantial
federal
question
exemplifies
approach
goodwin
concerned
lawyer
resided
new
jersey
practiced
law
new
york
city
new
york
income
tax
return
claimed
allowed
deductions
bar
association
dues
subscriptions
legal
periodicals
entertainment
car
expenses
certain
charitable
contributions
disallowed
deductions
real
estate
taxes
mortgage
interest
new
jersey
home
medical
expenses
life
insurance
premiums
goodwin
app
upholding
disallowances
appeals
explained
personal
expenses
issue
kind
properly
referred
law
policy
state
taxpayer
residence
state
income
tax
might
well
allowed
deductions
new
york
think
judgment
matter
shouldered
sister
state
goodwin
reasoned
state
may
accord
certain
deductions
exercise
general
governmental
power
advance
welfare
residents
ibid
inevitably
follow
state
must
extend
similar
aid
encouragement
residents
ibid
state
need
short
underwrite
social
policy
nation
cf
martinez
bynum
state
may
provide
free
primary
secondary
education
residents
without
extending
benefit
nonresidents
lower
courts
upholding
variety
personal
expense
deductions
residents
agreed
goodwin
analysis
challenges
rulings
like
appeal
goodwin
disposed
summarily
see
lung
upholding
denial
nonresidents
grocery
medical
tax
rebates
allowed
residents
rebates
served
relief
state
gross
receipts
property
taxes
appeal
dismissed
want
substantial
federal
question
anderson
tiemann
neb
upholding
denial
nonresidents
deduction
allowed
residents
sales
taxes
paid
food
purchased
personal
use
appeal
dismissed
want
substantial
federal
question
berry
state
tax
upholding
denial
nonresidents
deductions
allowed
residents
medical
expenses
interest
loans
personal
items
stated
legislature
legitimately
conclude
personal
deductions
closely
related
state
residence
allowed
state
residence
every
state
part
taxpayer
income
might
found
taxed
appeal
dismissed
want
substantial
federal
question
see
wood
department
revenue
state
may
deny
alimony
deduction
nonresidents
centuryschoolbook
italic
goodwin
privileges
immunities
analysis
per
suasive
elaboration
shaffer
travis
whether
goodwin
exposition
read
broadly
supporting
view
state
need
accord
nonresidents
deductions
personal
expenses
precisely
holding
state
may
deny
nonresidents
deductions
personal
expenditures
intimately
connected
state
taxpayer
residence
goodwin
app
christopher
lunding
entitled
relief
seeks
alimony
payments
properly
treated
expense
personal
expense
acknowledges
see
ante
ste
entirely
marital
relationship
gilmore
like
incidents
marital
family
life
principally
connected
state
residence
unlike
donations
new
charities
mortgage
tax
payments
second
homes
state
lunding
alimony
payments
said
take
place
new
york
inure
new
york
benefit
payments
particularly
personal
character
made
one
connecticut
resident
another
connecticut
resident
pursuant
decree
issued
connecticut
state
payments
must
deemed
take
place
connecticut
state
lunding
residence
state
life
centered
goodwin
new
york
constitutionally
compelled
subsidize
majority
therefore
wrong
fault
appeals
insufficient
articulation
policy
basis
ante
appeals
recalled
goodwin
characterizing
decision
definitively
addressed
disallowance
personal
life
expenses
see
concluded
alimony
payments
less
referable
law
policy
taxpayer
residence
expenditures
life
insurance
state
property
taxes
medical
treatment
issue
goodwin
justification
needed
elaboration
iii
although
lunding
alimony
payments
connecticut
resident
surely
facilitate
production
income
new
york
contribute
new
york
riches
relies
connection
personal
obligation
generally
correlates
taxpayer
total
income
wealth
alimony
bears
relationship
earnings
regardless
source
ante
see
also
ante
alimony
payments
arguably
bear
relationship
taxpayer
overall
earnings
determined
large
measure
individual
income
generally
wherever
earned
manner
spending
similarly
relates
individual
income
sources
income
generated
anywhere
determine
example
quality
home
one
afford
character
medical
care
one
purchase
correlat
ion
taxpayer
total
income
approach
ante
appears
nonresident
must
allowed
deduct
medical
expenses
home
state
real
estate
taxes
even
school
district
taxes
plus
mortgage
interest
payments
state
allows
residents
deduct
expenses
total
income
also
determines
eligibility
tax
relief
aimed
lowincome
taxpayers
notably
earned
income
tax
credits
state
required
make
credits
available
nonresidents
grants
residents
suggest
alimony
correlates
taxpayer
total
income
closely
run
personal
life
expenses
indeed
alimony
may
significantly
influenced
considerations
example
length
marriage
recipient
earnings
child
custody
support
arrangements
antenuptial
agreement
short
approach
directly
leads
christopher
lunding
candidly
argued
every
personal
deduction
allowed
residents
must
allowed
nonresidents
proportion
new
york
income
bears
taxpayer
total
income
see
tr
oral
arg
law
case
provisions
decisions
overturned
see
supra
beyond
capacity
legislature
repair
notions
fairness
ante
judgment
justify
today
extraordinary
resort
privilege
immunities
clause
contours
precisely
shaped
process
wear
constant
litigation
judicial
interpretation
baldwin
fish
game
reasons
stated
agree
privileges
immunities
clause
article
iv
mandates
result
lunding
insulation
alimony
payments
state
tax
accordingly
affirm
judgment
new
york
appeals
dissent
judgment
footnotes
section
provides
deduction
allowed
section
two
hundred
fifteen
internal
revenue
code
relating
alimony
shall
constitute
deduction
derived
new
york
sources
see
instructions
form
nonresident
resident
income
tax
return
figure
income
percentage
divide
amount
new
york
state
amount
column
amount
federal
amount
column
amount
new
york
state
amount
column
amount
federal
amount
column
income
percentage
see
goodwin
state
tax
app
div
aff
involving
state
denial
deductions
related
activities
including
medical
expenses
life
insurance
premiums
appeal
dism
see
also
lung
involving
state
denial
grocery
medical
tax
rebates
nonresidents
appeal
dism
rubin
glaser
involving
state
limitation
homestead
tax
rebate
principal
residences
residents
appeal
dism
davis
franchise
tax
board
cal
app
cal
rptr
involving
state
denial
income
averaging
method
tax
computation
nonresidents
appeal
dism
wilson
department
revenue
involving
state
limitation
nonresident
deductions
connected
income
appeal
dism
anderson
tiemann
neb
involving
state
denial
food
sales
tax
credit
nonresidents
appeal
dism
berry
state
tax
involving
state
limitation
nonresidents
personal
deductions
connected
income
appeal
dism
see
laws
alimony
deductions
allowed
recipient
subject
new
york
tax
laws
ch
alimony
deduction
allowed
residents
nonresidents
recipient
subject
new
york
tax
laws
ch
itemized
deductions
including
alimony
generally
allowed
nonresidents
proportion
new
york
source
income
see
mcintyre
pomp
state
income
tax
treatment
residents
nonresidents
privileges
immunities
clause
state
tax
notes
four
addition
new
california
west
virginia
limit
alimony
deduction
residents
see
code
cal
rev
tax
code
ann
west
code
stat
two
ohiorestrict
nonresidents
specified
deductions
adjustments
calculating
income
list
alimony
deduction
one
available
nonresidents
see
comp
stat
ch
ohio
rev
code
ann
appear
new
york
gains
unfair
share
tax
revenue
denying
nonresident
alimony
payers
deduction
even
recipient
resident
mcintyre
pomp
income
splitting
deduction
alimony
payments
state
tax
notes
alimony
payments
state
seems
reasonable
assume
approximately
balance
revenue
new
york
receives
current
regime
roughly
equivalent
revenue
generate
granting
deduction
nonresident
alimony
payers
resident
recipients
denying
deduction
resident
payers
nonresident
recipients
see
ibid
already
observed
lunding
seeks
escape
state
tax
income
question
connecticut
state
residence
income
tax
year
issue
hardly
fit
representative
individuals
elicit
concern
see
new
york
ferber
person
statute
may
constitutionally
applied
may
challenge
statute
ground
may
conceivably
applied
unconstitutionally
others
situations
new
york
law
travis
allowed
residents
deduct
property
losses
wherever
incurred
allowed
nonresidents
deductions
losses
incurred
new
york
see
tr
record
travis
yale
towne
mfg
state
new
york
personal
income
tax
law
pp
although
travis
held
new
york
law
infirm
rested
decision
solely
ground
denying
personal
exemptions
nonresidents
violated
privileges
immunities
clause
see
travis
extend
ruling
new
york
differential
treatment
residents
nonresidents
regard
deductions
see
unconstitutional
discrimination
confining
deductions
nonresidents
losses
connected
income
arising
sources
within
taxing
state
new
york
currently
allows
nonresident
taxpayers
use
state
earned
income
tax
credit
offset
income
tax
liability
refund
excess
credits
nonresidents
residents
tax
law
mckinney
supp
see
also
residents
entitled
refund
excess
credit
certain
household
dependent
care
services
nonresidents
may
use
credit
offset
tax
liability
connecticut
lunding
divorced
lists
factors
relevant
alimony
determinations
length
marriage
causes
annulment
dissolution
marriage
legal
separation
age
health
station
occupation
amount
sources
income
vocational
skills
employability
estate
needs
parties
case
parent
custody
minor
children
awarded
desirability
parent
securing
employment
stat