New York Tax Exempt: Fill & Download for Free

Well, the game is over, so there’s no longer an active controversy, just recriminations. But here’s what happened:Two years ago Amazon announced that it was going to create a second global headquarters in North America and solicited proposals from any city that believed it would be a good home for them. Because this new project, named Amazon HQ2, would come with tens of thousands of new, mega-high-paying jobs and lots of other benefits, there were many, many, many cities that tried to woo Amazon. As of October 23, 2017, more than 235 proposals had been received by the company, representing cities and regions from 54 states, provinces, districts, and territories. Most of these were obviously non-starters, and from the very beginning most knowledgeable observers figured that despite the hype of a Great National Search the obvious location was going to be somewhere between “a little south of Washington, DC” and “a little north of New York City”.For two years, this “competition” was the single biggest thing in the field of economic development, roughly akin to cities bidding to host the Olympics…but with potentially many more long-lasting consequences. Halfway through—just over a year ago—Amazon released the list of 20 finalists:Then, on November 13, 2018, Amazon announced its decision: rather than a single HQ2 it was going to divide the project into two, building one in Northern Virginia and the other in…New York City. The NYC site would be on a large parcel in the neighborhood known as Long Island City, in the borough of Queens along the East River, directly facing midtown Manhattan.While not completely unexpected (at least that HQ2 would be near NYC), the announcement was a bombshell. That was because—although many, many people, politicians, organizations and entities had joined in supporting letters welcoming Amazon—the entire actual negotiation process had been done in secret, by the Mayor and the Governor, respectively Progressive and Liberal Democrats who loathe each other but who worked together to land Amazon.When the location decision was announced, so were the terms of the deal that the City, State and Amazon had struck:The subsidies offered to Amazon in New York include performance-based direct incentives of $1.525 billion based on whether the company created 25,000 new jobs with an average wage upward of $150,000 a year. This included a refundable tax credit through the state’s Excelsior Program of up to $1.2 billion, calculated as a percentage of the salaries Amazon expected to pay employees over the following 10 years. Additionally, the Empire State Development Corporation would give Amazon a cash grant of $325 million based on the occupancy rates of HQ2 buildings over in the following 10 years.Under an agreement with New York City's government, half of the property taxes for the city's HQ2 campus would be waived and the exempt amount would go to the city's PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) fund to pay for infrastructure improvements in the city. Amazon would get access to a new helipad on the river, and New York State would fund additional infrastructure improvements in the area.On the flip side, Amazon would invest $2.5 billion in the LIC HQ2 and projected it could generate $10 billion in tax revenue for New York over the next 20 years. Amazon would eventually employ up to 40,000 people in LIC once the company expanded to 8 million square feet of office space, and Amazon said it would donate a site to build a new primary or intermediate public school serving 600 students. It would also set aside space on its campus for a tech startup incubator, and promised investments for a new 3.5-acre waterfront esplanade and park and infrastructure upgrades in the area. There would also be "a lot of efforts" to help residents at the Queensbridge Houses, a large public housing development in the neighborhood.The combination of the jobs, incentives and promises was met with differing reactions:Economic development advocates saw 25,000–40,000 new, high-tech, $150k jobs as a Good Thing, along with 8 million feet of office space and lots of infrastructure improvements (plus the school, park, etc.)But many people on the Progressive end of the spectrum were outraged that New York was going to “spend” billions of dollars to “bribe” the world’s biggest company to come to the City and provide a “private heliport for the world’s richest man so that he could avoid the broken down subway.”Coupled with concerns about Gentrification of the surrounding neighborhood, many local politicians, including the currently high-profile congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez whose district is nearby the LIC site, began to furiously attack the City, Amazon, the Mayor and the Governor for “stealing from the poor to give to the rich”. While polls consistently showed that over two-thirds of the people in New York wanted Amazon to locate here and bring its new, high-paying jobs, the rising chorus of opposition from the Left became a PR problem for Amazon. Already wounded from other PR issues (from Jeff Bezos’s personal life, to Amazon’s size and generally increasing scariness), the controversy kept getting louder, rather than going away.Even though the deal theoretically did not require a popular vote and was insulated from the local political process, the rising, vocal opposition led the Democratic-controlled New York State Senate to appoint the leading opponent of the deal (the local state senator from the area of the site) to chair a committee that could have interfered with the closing of the transaction.That was apparently the last straw for Amazon, and on February 14, 2019, the company announced without warning that it was canceling the project, and would just go with Northern Virginia, while continuing to expand its other locations around the country (including NYC.)“For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long-term. A number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project.”Opponents of the project rejoiced, claiming it as a win for “the little people”. The governor blamed the opponents as self-interested politicians, and the mayor blamed everyone.Most New Yorkers saw it as a major or moderate loss, and blamed both sides.

She cannot dissolve it. A court can, but the law she would have to prove her case under is going to make that process nigh impossible. The organization is not corrupt - and no one is presuming that, but the law she would need to prosecute under demands that the organization have been set up for entirely corrupt purposes.For example, the Mafia - had they set up a Costco-type membership store whose only purpose was to sell illegal goods out the back door while selling a few legit trinkets out the front, the store could be shut down. All the employees and all the membership would have known the real purpose of the store was to sell illegal goods. The NRA is hardly in that mode. But that’s what she would have to prove.She is also going after the leadership - claiming they abused member donations for their personal luxury and gain. That’ll be easier to prove, but will not and cannot result in the dissolution of the NRA.Nevertheless, she will actually have to prove it to a judge and jury. We will have to wait and see if it even gets that far.This is timed for an election year to distract the NRA from one of its functions - to prevent the election of anti-gun candidates and support the election of pro-gun candidates. One of the 6 major divisions of the NRA, and the only one that is NOT tax-exempt, is the NRA-ILA (Political Victory Fund) which performs this role. But she is alleging the tax-exempt monies were misused out of the non-profit divisions. It’ll be interesting to see where this goes.

Hey Kirstie!Great question by the way! And you know I have an interesting answer for you!Now White House officials did not provide a comment on why he's doing it. But there are several advantages to it, primarily that Florida has no state income tax. Since he signed the 2017 tax bill into law, POTUS now joins the ranks of people leaving NY. Political reasons are also in play.But let me give you a little history of the Trump clan and how the bone spurs prone illegal Trumps were welcomed with open arms in America despite they couldn’t be legally here and were draft dodgers! Yes, that’s right already way back then in 1885…On October 7, 1885, Friedrich Trump, a 16-year-old German barber, bought a one-way ticket for America, escaping three years of compulsory German military service. He had been a sickly child, unsuited to hard labor, and feared the effects of the draft. It might have been illegal, but America didn’t care about this law-breaking—at that time, Germans were seen as highly desirable migrants—and Trump was welcomed with open arms. Less than two weeks later, he arrived in New York, where he would eventually make a small fortune.***He married a woman from his German hometown, Kallstadt, where his parents had owned vineyards, and attempted to return home with his fortune. But when his draft dodging came to the fore, the couple lost their Bavarian citizenship and were obliged to return to America for good.(www.history.com/...)That the very son of the first draft evading illegal Trump would one day wear the white robes himself (www.vice.com/...) is ironic and something that in a normal family capable of embarrassment would be disturbing and even humbling.Yes, Fred Trump was a berobed marcher.Who’d a thought that one day the son of a white-sheeted knight of Queens would rise to the presidency and, for tax and political purposes, try to give the appearance of moving his racist ass to Palm Beach sort of for keeps. It’s time to peer deeply into his empty heart on this. GaltisalieNow the very son of that white-robe wearing Trump says he wants to bring his domicile and his most personal effects (diaries, black books, secret tanning products, dear old dad’s racist momentos, etc.) in a U-Haul to the Sunshine State (www.nytimes.com/...). This time, in addition to leaving his white-robe sympathizing ways behind and other acts of sincere contrition, he better be prepared to bring clear and convincing proof. Smart people with subpoena power will want to peer deep within his empty heart to discern the truth, which could be challenging to both the auditor and the audited.To prove a change of domicile, the asserting party must prove the change of domicile by clear and convincing evidence.17 As previously mentioned, proving domicile is a fact-intensive inquiry. New York’s Appellate Division has stated that “no single factor is controlling and the unique facts and circumstances of each case must be closely considered.”18 In Matter of Rudolph (Deceased) & Loretta Zapka, New York Department of Taxation Appeals, DTA No. 804111 (June 22, 1989), the taxpayers argued they changed their domicile from New York to Florida, but they had strong ties to both New York and Florida. New York’s Tax Appeals Tribunal stated that “[t]he mere fact that persuasive arguments can be made from the facts in support of both Florida and New York as petitioners’ domicile indicates that they have not clearly and convincingly evidenced an intent to change their New York domicile.”19 Accordingly, establishing strong ties in a new location may not be sufficient evidence of intent if strong ties are continued with the old domicile.***After changing domicile, New York may challenge the individual’s nonresident filing status for income tax purposes via an income tax audit. During an audit, three issues are examined, starting with the domicile of the individual. If it is determined that the individual is not domiciled in New York, the next issue is whether the individual is a New York statutory resident. If the individual is determined to be a New York statutory resident, the third issue is the allocation of income. The scope of the audit will be based on the facts involved.***In determining domicile, the guidelines require the auditor to examine two general categories: primary factors and other factors.34 There are five primary factors: the home; active business involvement; time; items “near and dear”; and family connections. If the auditor has not reached a supportable conclusion based upon the five primary factors, the auditor will examine “other” factors, including, but not limited to:35• Citation in legal documents, such as wills, that a jurisdiction is the place of domicile.• Address at which bills, financial statements and correspondence concerning other family business is primarily received.• Physical location of safe deposit boxes used for family records and valuables.• Location of auto, boat, and airplane registrations and driver’s or operator’s licenses.• Where the individual is registered to vote and whether he or she has exercised that right.• Possession of a New York City Parking Tax exemption.• Telephone services at each residence, including the nature of the listing, the type of service features and activity at the location.(www.floridabar.org/...)Let the auditing continue and delve even more deeply.Sources: Everyone linked in the text.