Military Spouses Residency Relief Act

[Belle]

We are having me taken off the title ASAP although I don't know if it's going to help.

As it happened, when we (yes, we, with some of "my own money" even!) bought the truck we were a dual military couple. We didn't even think of only having one of us on the title since, we both bought the car and we both drive it and we both went out of town frequently and wanted the other person to be able to deal with any issues if one of us was gone (towed, wrecked, booted...never has happened, but you never know). It was a pretty simple decision at the time and in the four years we've owned the truck it has not caused us a problem. I honestly didn't even know that a state could tax you on a vehicle that was already registered in another state. Not to mention Fairfax County says the value of our truck has gone UP almost $1000 in the last year.

My larger point was that the MSRRA does very little for most military spouses. Unless your spouse is able to claim the same domicile as you are, the act does not apply to her and the states can continue to mess with your assets and income as they would with any civilian living in their state. I was under the (false) impression that the act was going to fix things like this, but it really doesn't. I'm bitter about it, so I posted here, but I really don't think there's anything that can be done. I'm going to write a few letters to people I think might be able to help either amend the language of the law, or try to get Virigina to stop treating military spouses/members like crap (I had a lady in the tax office argue with me that I had the choice to move to Virginia with my husband, I could have stayed at our last duty station instead of coming with him, so therefore I should consider tax laws the next time I decide to move with him).

 

[SWACQ]

When my wife and I first moved to VA, we had both names on two vehicles. The lady at DMV when I was getting the plates told me I had to pay property tax. I said I'm military. She said your wife is not so you owe 50% for your wife's share. I said, can you scratch my wife's name off the title form? She said yes. Fortunately both were paid for free an clear, so we were able to retitle the vehicle in just my name. There may be issues doing this if you have both names on the loan from the bank if you still owe a payment. So in short order all cars at my house were in my name only. Easy fix. You will still owe taxes up to today (or whenver it is retitled), but moving forward you would be in the clear.

For Belle, I'm still curious how the state of Virginia/Fairfax County is aware of this vehicle's existance in order to send you a bill for taxes due if it is titled and registered in the state of TX?

As for Brett's post, I have to agree, although his tone was kind of harsh. Couple's put both names on property because of some touchy feely emotional reason as if doing so will make them more secure in their relationship or otherwise indicate committment to each other, when the reality is that the name actually on the property is irrelevant during a divorce proceeding.

Also, now that I'm out (I'm reserves), we put my wife's car back in her name. The rest of the cars are still in my name only because we didn't want to pay for a new title to be made. The only advantage this has is that my wife has clear ownership of her vehicle should I die and she is not stuck in limbo if my property is tied up in probate. Not sure if that really matters or not, again, may have been more of an emotional move than one founded in a lawful advantage.

 

[phrogdriver]

We are having me taken off the title ASAP although I don't know if it's going to help.

As it happened, when we (yes, we, with some of "my own money" even!) bought the truck we were a dual military couple. We didn't even think of only having one of us on the title since, we both bought the car and we both drive it and we both went out of town frequently and wanted the other person to be able to deal with any issues if one of us was gone (towed, wrecked, booted...never has happened, but you never know). It was a pretty simple decision at the time and in the four years we've owned the truck it has not caused us a problem. I honestly didn't even know that a state could tax you on a vehicle that was already registered in another state. Not to mention Fairfax County says the value of our truck has gone UP almost $1000 in the last year.

My larger point was that the MSRRA does very little for most military spouses. Unless your spouse is able to claim the same domicile as you are, the act does not apply to her and the states can continue to mess with your assets and income as they would with any civilian living in their state. I was under the (false) impression that the act was going to fix things like this, but it really doesn't. I'm bitter about it, so I posted here, but I really don't think there's anything that can be done. I'm going to write a few letters to people I think might be able to help either amend the language of the law, or try to get Virigina to stop treating military spouses/members like crap (I had a lady in the tax office argue with me that I had the choice to move to Virginia with my husband, I could have stayed at our last duty station instead of coming with him, so therefore I should consider tax laws the next time I decide to move with him).

I'm a little torn on this. It's not as if civilians aren't required to move different places for their jobs from time to time, and usually they're stuck for a lot longer than 3-4 years, paying every local tax.

I just think that eventually the military is going to suck up all the goodwill in the room by getting too many exceptions and exemptions for various things. Yeah, we put our lives on the line, deploy, blah, blah. There are lots of people who do great things out there, and their families all pay every single tax. Especially when the economy is weak, and budget cuts are eventually coming, people are eventually going to get fed up with our whining about being special and start peeling off those yellow ribbon stickers.

 

[MasterBates]

True, but if I am living in VA paying "every little tax" as a Civ, I CHOSE to work/live there.

Also, if I took a job in NH, and they tried to transfer me to VA with no raise, but higher taxes, I'd probably not move.

While Civs do move for work, they are not forced to "move to VA or we will put you in jail" which I'm pretty sure that if I refused to take my orders to a east coast VAW squadron, it would have degraded to that eventually. If I was a civilian engineer, and my company told me I'm going to a place I don't want to go, for money that won't offset the increased taxes, I could tell said civilian company to fuck off and quit.

 

[Belle]

I just think that eventually the military is going to suck up all the goodwill in the room by getting too many exceptions and exemptions for various things. Yeah, we put our lives on the line, deploy, blah, blah. There are lots of people who do great things out there, and their families all pay every single tax. Especially when the economy is weak, and budget cuts are eventually coming, people are eventually going to get fed up with our whining about being special and start peeling off those yellow ribbon stickers.

Which is fine, the law is the law, if I owe the tax I'll pay it (even if I think it's bogus that a Toyota Tundra could gain $800 worth of value in a year and the only reason they are taxing is is because of a technicality in the law).

I'd just rather not have Congress getting credit for the great thing they have done for military spouses by passing this bill, which was touted as fixing these types of situations, when it pretty much applies only to those who meet and marry in the same state and the spouse has never changes her residency. And I'd like to give a PSA out there to anyone who didn't realize that the act didn't fix this issue, unless I'm the only one who didn't know.

 

[Belle]

For Belle, I'm still curious how the state of Virginia/Fairfax County is aware of this vehicle's existance in order to send you a bill for taxes due if it is titled and registered in the state of TX?

This is what I'd like to know. The tax guy said someone reported it. I asked a few more questions, but all he would tell me is that someone reported it.

 

[villanelle]

I don't think it is as useless are you may think. It sucks for people who have already been moving around, before the law, and lost a chance to establish residency in a "good" state, but from now on any time a couple lands in one of those desirable states, they can both establish residency and keep it forever. So the only people who are screwed are those who lived in (and left) that good state prior to this law.

Yes, if you marry someone who has desirable residency you can't just glom onto that and claim it as your own, but it makes sense that you can't declare FL residency if you've never lived in FL. The purpose is basically that if you consider yourself a Floridian, but the military makes you move because it makes your spouse move, then you aren't punished for that. And I think it's very effective in doing that (for anyone from this point forward). It doesn't give away the ability for anyone to pick any state, but there's no justifiable reason why military spouse's should have that ability.

 

[Belle]

I don't think it is as useless are you may think. It sucks for people who have already been moving around, before the law, and lost a chance to establish residency in a "good" state, but from now on any time a couple lands in one of those desirable states, they can both establish residency and keep it forever. So the only people who are screwed are those who lived in (and left) that good state prior to this law.

It's not just people who've moved before the law was passed that are screwed. Unless you have the same domicile as your husband when you get married, the law doesn't apply to you. If your husband joined the military from BFE, ID and claims that as his home state because that's where he wants to retire, and you meet in California and get married...well, if you're a Navy couple the chances of getting stationed in ID and being able to claim that as your domicile in order to qualify for the exemptions are pretty slim.

Yes, if you both land in a "good" state then you can both change your domicile if that's what you want, but why should anyone have to change their residency to qualify? And what if you spend your time in the Navy going from VA to CA and back again? We have very little chance of ever getting stationed in a state that would not cost us money if my husband switched his domicile.

Yes, if you marry someone who has desirable residency you can't just glom onto that and claim it as your own, but it makes sense that you can't declare FL residency if you've never lived in FL. The purpose is basically that if you consider yourself a Floridian, but the military makes you move because it makes your spouse move, then you aren't punished for that. And I think it's very effective in doing that (for anyone from this point forward). It doesn't give away the ability for anyone to pick any state, but there's no justifiable reason why military spouse's should have that ability.

I don't want to pick any state, and you're right, I don't think that should be possible. It does make sense that you can't claim FL residency if you've never lived there, but if your husband is from there, and you're from California and you never get stationed in FL, the law won't apply to you unless your husband changes his residency. You can't claim any state that you have lived in and qualify under the law unless it is the same as your husband's. It seems unlikely (to me) that very many people who get married while in the military can claim the same state as their spouse and there's absolutely no reason to require that a spouse have the same domicile as her husband in order to qualify under the law that I can see. Sure, don't let her just claim any state that she wants, but how about the state she's from? Or the state she last lived in? I don't know, I don't want to seem overly argumentative, but as far as I can see the law only applies to a very specific set of circumstances (where couples meet, marry in and are from the same state -- or both agree to change their residency to one state that they get stationed in) that doesn't seem very likely at all in the military.

 

[SWACQ]

I have to agree with Belle. The law seems like a great idea except for the verbiage that requires the spouse to have the same domicile as the military member.

 

[Flash]

This is what I'd like to know. The tax guy said someone reported it. I asked a few more questions, but all he would tell me is that someone reported it.

I guess I got lucky, I had a car with FL plates for almost 4 years in Fairfax and didn't have a problem. Who did you piss off?

 

[gotta_fly]

It's not just people who've moved before the law was passed that are screwed. Unless you have the same domicile as your husband when you get married, the law doesn't apply to you. If your husband joined the military from BFE, ID and claims that as his home state because that's where he wants to retire, and you meet in California and get married...well, if you're a Navy couple the chances of getting stationed in ID and being able to claim that as your domicile in order to qualify for the exemptions are pretty slim.

Agreed. My wife and I met and married in NH, but when we moved around for flight school she was required to get a new drivers' license each time in order to work in those states. Meanwhile, I maintained NH residency. Now the law would allow her to keep her NH residency if she still had it, but we're having trouble getting her status changed back, despite her having been a resident there for most of her life.

 

[Lucy]

Just a note on the spouse paycheck, even if you both claim residency in a "non-tax" state, like Fl or Tx, but your spouse works in another, they will likely still end up owing taxes. We live in Washington, non income tax state, but my husband worked in OR. He was paying out more to Oregon tax than he did federally, even with "payback" for not being a state resident. We even OWED money one year because he was claiming 1, which was accurate for his non married status. Just a heads up to newly moved/marrieds. Don't count on getting the money back.

 

[villanelle]

It's not just people who've moved before the law was passed that are screwed. Unless you have the same domicile as your husband when you get married, the law doesn't apply to you. If your husband joined the military from BFE, ID and claims that as his home state because that's where he wants to retire, and you meet in California and get married...well, if you're a Navy couple the chances of getting stationed in ID and being able to claim that as your domicile in order to qualify for the exemptions are pretty slim.

Yes, if you both land in a "good" state then you can both change your domicile if that's what you want, but why should anyone have to change their residency to qualify? And what if you spend your time in the Navy going from VA to CA and back again? We have very little chance of ever getting stationed in a state that would not cost us money if my husband switched his domicile.



I don't want to pick any state, and you're right, I don't think that should be possible. It does make sense that you can't claim FL residency if you've never lived there, but if your husband is from there, and you're from California and you never get stationed in FL, the law won't apply to you unless your husband changes his residency. You can't claim any state that you have lived in and qualify under the law unless it is the same as your husband's. It seems unlikely (to me) that very many people who get married while in the military can claim the same state as their spouse and there's absolutely no reason to require that a spouse have the same domicile as her husband in order to qualify under the law that I can see. Sure, don't let her just claim any state that she wants, but how about the state she's from? Or the state she last lived in? I don't know, I don't want to seem overly argumentative, but as far as I can see the law only applies to a very specific set of circumstances (where couples meet, marry in and are from the same state -- or both agree to change their residency to one state that they get stationed in) that doesn't seem very likely at all in the military.

I think this law was an attempt to make sure spouse's don't lose residency of their choice because of military moves. Civilians essentially get to pick where they live, thereby choosing the domicile/residency state. Because the military makes you move, you don't have that right. it's basically toe level the playing field so military members and spouses (as opposed to just the member) can do as civilains do--choose their state of residency.

You, just like a civilian who lives in VA or CA, will pay takes as a VA and CA resident because you are a VA/CA resident. If you ever live in FL, then you can decide to keep that. Again, this law is about not causing anyone to lose residency just because of a military move. It does that quite effectively.

As for not being able to pick a separate state from him, I can't get too upset about that. It is his military affiliation that give you access to this advantage, so I don't think tying the application of the law to him is all that unfair. It may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better for a hell of a lot of people than it was before. I suppose it would be better if you could choose to keep any state you've lived in, whether it is the same one your husband chooses or not, but even that doesn't make all that much sense. Going back to how this law is supposed to prevent you from giving up residency due to a military move, if you live in TX and marry a guy in CA and move to be with him, that move isn't military related. It's a choice, really. Any future move would be military related, so when you leave CA, then go to FL and leave there, I guess maybe they should let you keep FL even if your husband doesn't change his to there, but at that point, you have a choice to both switch to FL, so if you choose not to, then that's a decision you've consciously made, but the opportunity was certainly available to you to reap the benefits of this law, and at that point you've chosen, for whatever reason, not to take advantage.

Why doesn't it seem very likely to you that both would agree to change there residency to the same state? I can't imagine landing in a tax free state together and not both establishing residency there. What would be the downside? You both have to pay to reregister your cars 1 time which is a pretty minor thing. What's the other drawback?

DH and I moved from CA to Vegas for about a month before coming to Japan. We established residency there and we will keep that. I suspect anyone who goes through flight school while married will now heavily consider changing both spouses' residency (which I'm using interchangeably with "domicile" though they aren't quite the same) to FL/TX while they are there. And anyone stationed at either place, plus any of the bases in several other desirable states, can now consider doing the same. So it isn't just a few people who will benefit. And it certainly those who meet and marry prior to the service in a good state. Anyone who passes through a good state at any point in a career can benefit. If you or your husband choose not to change residency while there, then yes, you won't benefit, but that's a choice you've made.

If they don't want to give up residency in their state because that's "home" and they consider that more important that tax and voting and car registration issues, they can do that. But if they want the benefits, those are now available to them if they decide to keep that residency when they leave the state.

 

[villanelle]

Agreed. My wife and I met and married in NH, but when we moved around for flight school she was required to get a new drivers' license each time in order to work in those states. Meanwhile, I maintained NH residency. Now the law would allow her to keep her NH residency if she still had it, but we're having trouble getting her status changed back, despite her having been a resident there for most of her life.

It does suck for people who could have benefited but missed out on that because they moved away before the law was enacted. But at least now anyone in that situation in the future won't be put in that position.

 

[phrogpilot73]

It comes down to this - there's a blurb somewhere (I don't remember where) that allows the military member to keep their state of residency, because that's where they "intend to return." So, if you maintain separate states of residence - that means the military member intends to return to one state, and the spouse intends to return to a different one. I guess that means they intend to divorce.

No matter what, I think that a spouse should be able to declare their residency in the same state as their loved one, based on his/her permanent address/address that he used to establish his residency, without ever having lived in that state. Why? Because they intend to return to that state with their spouse.