Houghton v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 953 N.W.2d 237

In December 2011 Thomas and Pamela Houghton moved from Nebraska to the U.K. after Thomas accepted permanent employment there; they previously had lived in the U.K. twice for work assignments.
During 2012–2014 the Houghtons filed Nebraska tax returns listing a U.K. address, paid U.K. taxes, and used a U.K. accountant; they kept an accountant in Nebraska to prepare returns and computed Nebraska tax on the nonresident/partial-year schedule.
The Houghtons held Tier 2 U.K. work visas (initially 2011–2014, extended to 2017), applied for and obtained indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in June 2016, and became British citizens in February 2018.
They retained two Nebraska properties (converted to rentals) until selling them in 2017, kept no Nebraska bank accounts, joined a U.K. country club, bought cars in the U.K., and tracked absences from the U.K. for immigration filings.
The Nebraska Department of Revenue assessed deficiencies for tax years 2012–2014, concluding the Houghtons remained domiciled in Nebraska until they obtained permanent U.K. residency; the district court affirmed, and the Houghtons appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Houghtons abandoned Nebraska domicile and acquired a U.K. domicile for 2012–2014	Houghton: moved to U.K., intended to remain indefinitely and naturalize, integrated into U.K. life (taxes, clubs, vehicles, accounts)	Dept. of Rev.: visa limitations prevented an intent to remain indefinitely; retention of Nebraska property and other acts show continued Nebraska domicile	Court affirmed: competent evidence supports finding they did not acquire U.K. domicile during 2012–2014
Relevance of U.K. visa status to domicile	Houghton: subjective intent to remain and pursue naturalization shows domicile change	Dept. of Rev.: limited Tier 2 visas (with fixed expirations) make indefinite stay impossible until ILR eligibility; subjective intent inconsistent with law is insufficient	Held: visa nature is essential; a limited visa that restricts ability to remain makes subjective intent unrealistic and insufficient to establish new domicile
Probative value of Thomas’s 2012 election under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2715.09	Houghton: election and other facts show nonresident status in later years	Dept. of Rev.: the 2012 sworn election (available only to residents) supports Nebraska residency	Held: the 2012 election is probative of 2012 residency; court concurred it was not logically probative of 2013–2014 because the election is a one-time election, but the Tax Commissioner used it as an additional supporting fact for 2012–2014

In re Estate of Craven, 265 Neb. 41, 654 N.W.2d 196 (2002) (sets forth domicile-by-choice elements: physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely and abandonment of former domicile)
Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 306 Neb. 947, 947 N.W.2d 731 (2020) (standards limiting appellate reversal in Administrative Procedure Act appeals)
Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 297 Neb. 938, 902 N.W.2d 147 (2017) (administrative appeal procedures and review framework)
Dist. of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 (1941) (testimony of intent is subject to scrutiny and may be contradicted by inconsistent acts)
Comptroller of the Treasury v. Mollard, 53 Md. App. 631, 455 A.2d 72 (1983) (when move is to a foreign country, the nature of the admitting visa is essential in domicile analysis)
In re Interest of Gabriella H., 289 Neb. 323, 855 N.W.2d 368 (2014) (intent is a factual question that may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)