119 F.2d 451 | D.C. Cir. | 1941
This is a companion case to District of Columbia v. DeHart,-App.D.C.-, 119 F.2d 449, decided this day. The applicable statute is the same;
The government relies particularly upon certain testimony of respondent — to challenge the finding of the Board that he was not domiciled within the District of Columbia on December 31, 1939' — as follows:
“Q. * * * What is the difference between your mental operation after you went to Detroit and when you first came to Washington as to the tenure of residence? A. When I first went to Detroit I thought of a career. I had been a student and I thought I was starting something new. When I came to Washington my original idea was to get two or three years’ experience which would be valuable to me elsewhere.
“Q. But you have since abandoned that idea? A. I can say this — at the end of five years here I am no nearer leaving than when I came. You probably don’t have the same feeling of permanency here that you would in Detroit.
“Q. You didn’t have much of a feeling of permanency in Detroit when you left there to come to Washington, did you? A. No, although I can say that when I left Detroit to come to Washington it was sudden. It was an offer that I couldn’t turn down.
“Q. After you were here two years you say you abandoned the idea you had which was somewhat nebulous? A. The idea was nebulous in the first place but I can not say it was abandoned. It has become attenuated. It depends on the circumstances.
“Q. If you were offered a position in Boston, New York, or St. Louis you — which is superior to your position here, you would go there, wouldn’t you? A. I very likely would.
“Q. You are not insistent that such place be Detroit? A. I have a preference for Detroit. It is a place where I would fit in more easily.
“Q. Suppose your friend who is in Detroit moved to St. Louis to a bank there— A. He just came from Kansas City to Detroit after the banking holiday. These things are transient. I doubt if any of us would hesitate to make the change if we could better ourselves.
“Q. But you would go there if you could better yourself? A. Yes.
“Q. Suppose you were offered a satisfactory position in New York, would you go there? A. Yes.
“Q. The thing I meant to suggest, and what I understood you to say your attachment to Detroit was because of your friends there. If you had that contact elsewhere would you go there — if this friend of yours who is in the bank in Detroit were to go elsewhere would you go with him? A. That is correct.”
Although the evidence may be more persuasive in the present case than in the DeHart case, nevertheless, we see no sufficient reason to disturb the findings and determination of the Board. It is common knowledge among highly trained professional and business people that when new opportunities are presented, changes of residence and of domicil may result. But that the respondent in the present case frankly stated his willingness to consider, hypothetically, advantageous and future business possibilities, is not sufficient to offset his positive statement that Detroit is his home; that he intends to return there if and when he becomes disemployed by the government; or to offset the equally convincing proof of intention to maintain his state allegiance while engaged in federal service, which results from the fact that he has maintained his status as a registered voter and “has ever since voted in the elections and primaries there.” As we said in the Sweeney case, the rendering of government service in the District of Columbia, which was set apart especially for the purposes of the national government, should not too casually be “visited with the penalty of severing state allegiance or making it dubious.” Neither should abandonment of domicil be held to have resulted unless the federal employee “gives clear evidence of his intention to forego his state allegiance.”
Affirmed.
Section 2(a) of the District of Columbia Income Tax Act (Act of July 26, 1939, 53 Stat. 1087, D.C.Code (Supp. V, 1939) tit. 20, § 980a).
72 App.D.C. 30, 113 F.2d 25, 129 A.L.R. 1370, certiorari denied, 310 U.S. 631, 60 S.Ct. 1082, 84 L.Ed. 1402.
Sweeney v. District of Columbia, 72 App.D.C. 30, 113 F.2d 25, 32, 129 A.L. R. 1370, certiorari denied, 310 U.S. 631, 60 S.Ct. 1082, 84 L.Ed. 1402.