Jump to content

Which State Florida OR South Dakota is better to have residency for tax purposes :)?


Pamela

Recommended Posts

Hi :)

We just retired, started traveling and just joined escapes and will be getting residency in Florida or South Dakota. I wanted to hear peoples views on which state  they like and why? which is cheeper and which ones better for tax reasons. :)

Thank you for any and all input :)ūüėÄ

Pamela 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on which one you like best. There are good and bad with both. Texas is another option and maybe more if you really want to dig into it. 

Your tax consultant, health care provider, investment advisor can give you more personal advice and I checked with all before choosing South Dakota. I have a favorite mail box service too. PM me if you would like the name. I've been with two and the last one has been the best, a good friend gave me the recommendation. 

 


Rod

White 2000/2010Volvo VNL 770 with 7' Drom box with opposing doors,  JOST slider hitch. 600 HP Cummins Signature 18 Speed three pedal auto shift.

1999 Isuzu VehiCross retired to a sticks and bricks garage. Brought out of storage the summer of 2022

2022 Jeep Wrangler Sport S Two door hard top.

2007 Honda GL 1800

2013 Space Craft Mfg S420 Custom built Toyhauler

The Gold Volvo is still running and being emptied in July. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one can tell you which domicile is best for your personal lifestyle and financial situation.  Only your tax consultant/advisor can tell which location will be to your benefit.  The internet experts will not have the answer for you.

Ken

Amateur radio operator, 2023 Cougar 22MLS, 2022 F150 Lariat 4x4 Off Road, Sport trim <br />Travel with 1 miniature schnauzer, 1 standard schnauzer and one African Gray parrot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto to get with your/a tax advisor. But there is much more to it. You need to find out succession laws for taxes and limitations if you have a sizeable estate. Whether important or not each should consider if they want legal physician assisted suicide, pot legal or not, registration and insurance costs, and a lot more. If you stay half a year there and are snowbirds or have a stix n brix even more considerations in local laws and taxes. Those are examples only.

All the folks that said sit down face to face with a tax/financial consultant are correct IMO.

RV/Derek
http://www.rvroadie.com Email on the bottom of my website page.
Retired AF 1971-1998


When you see a worthy man, endeavor to emulate him. When you see an unworthy man, look inside yourself. - Confucius

 

‚ÄúThose who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.‚ÄĚ ... Voltaire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sandsys said:

One couple, who were not married for financial reasons, had to move from Texas where common law marriages are allowed.

Common law marriage is not "automatic" and can easily be avoided by following just a few simple rules:

Do not hold yourself out as being married.

Don't introduce your partner as your spouse.

Don't refer to them as your husband or wife.

Don't file federal tax returns as a married couple.

Dutch
2001 GBM Landau 34' Class A
F-53 Chassis, Triton V10, TST TPMS
2011 Toyota RAV4 4WD/Remco pump
ReadyBrute Elite tow bar/brake system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dutch_12078 said:

Common law marriage is not "automatic" and can easily be avoided by following just a few simple rules:

Do not hold yourself out as being married.

Don't introduce your partner as your spouse.

Don't refer to them as your husband or wife.

Don't file federal tax returns as a married couple.

When a man and a woman live together as a couple people tend to assume they are married. That can cause problems if others present them as such. It can be tiring to have to always explain otherwise.

Linda

Blog: http://sandcastle.sandsys.org/

Former Rigs: Liesure Travel van, Winnebago View 24H, Winnebago Journey 34Y, Sportsmobile Sprinter conversion van

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sandsys said:

When a man and a woman live together as a couple people tend to assume they are married. That can cause problems if others present them as such. It can be tiring to have to always explain otherwise.

Linda

It may be awkward at times, but others assuming a couple is married without the couple presenting themselves as such is not a legal basis for any claim of common law marriage by any legal authority.

Dutch
2001 GBM Landau 34' Class A
F-53 Chassis, Triton V10, TST TPMS
2011 Toyota RAV4 4WD/Remco pump
ReadyBrute Elite tow bar/brake system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Common Law Marriage: A Definition

A common law marriage is one in which the couple lives together for a period of time and holds themselves out to friends, family and the community as "being married," but without ever going through a formal ceremony or getting a marriage license. Below are three of the common requirements for most states (note that just "living together" isn't enough to validate a common law marriage).

1. You must live together (amount of time varies by state).

2. You both must have the legal right or "capacity to marry".

  • Both must be 18 years old (varies by State).
  • Both must be of¬†sound mind.
  • Both must not be married to someone else.

3. You both must intend to be married.

4. You both must hold yourself out to friends and family as being a married couple.

  • Taking the same last name.
  • Referring to each other in public as "husband," "wife," or "spouse."
  • Holding joint bank accounts / credit cards.

Good travelin !...............Kirk

Full-time 11+ years...... Now seasonal travelers.
Kirk & Pam's Great RV Adventure

            images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqFswi_bvvojaMvanTWAI

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2023 at 12:57 PM, sandsys said:

One couple, who were not married for financial reasons, had to move from Texas where common law marriages are allowed.

Who was declaring them married, and what was it based on?  There had to be something the couple was doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blues said:

Who was declaring them married, and what was it based on?  There had to be something the couple was doing.

Or they were badly misinformed...

Dutch
2001 GBM Landau 34' Class A
F-53 Chassis, Triton V10, TST TPMS
2011 Toyota RAV4 4WD/Remco pump
ReadyBrute Elite tow bar/brake system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2023 at 7:26 AM, Kirk W said:

I'm guessing you didn't actually check to see if this article is accurate.  Such is the peril of quickly quoting information found on the internet.  Plus you left out one of the most important parts of the article--that only a small minority of states allow common law marriage at all. 

But more importantly, the source looks reputable, with what looks like links for each of the nine states it says "fully recognize common law marriage."  But the links for eight of the nine states listed don't go to anything related to common law marriage at all--they go to a section of the website on annulment and prohibited marriage laws.

Now, for Texas, the link does go to a page called "Common Law Marriage in Texas" and that page does have a link (called "Texas law") to the Texas statute on informal marriage, so that's helpful. 

https://www.findlaw.com/state/texas-law/common-law-marriage-in-texas.html

However, when I went to Findlaw's page on Texas laws, I couldn't find a link to any laws on common law marriage, so I'm not sure how someone just looking at their lists of laws might find it.  But at least it's there, unlike for the other eight states.

Findlaw's website offers very little other than its assertions about what the states' laws are, with no supporting authority.  But the assertions aren't necessarily correct.  (Which probably explains the lack of supporting authority, although Chatbots are now making up supporting authority out of thin air in the legal field--another reason to be very careful when relying on internet answers.)

Anyway, if you click on the "list of states" link, you go to a page called "What is common law marriage?" describing each state's laws.

https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/common-law-marriage-states.html

As with the other page, it looks authoritative because the name of each state is a clickable link, but once again, those links go to the site's pages about annulment and prohibited marriage laws.  Even in the case of Texas this time, for some reason.

And speaking of Texas, the description of Texas law on informal marriage on that page isn't accurate.  It says, "If a couple in Texas signs a form provided by the county clerk, agrees to be married, cohabitates, and represents to others that they are married, a common law marriage exists."  That's not true.  Or, well, it is true, but it's not the only way to establish a common law marriage in Texas.  In Texas, a couple can enter into a common law marriage without signing any form, and ironically, the law providing that is the only actual common law marriage law for a state the website cites.

And this page links to another page, called "Common law marriage FAQs."

https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/common-law-marriages-faq-s-what-states-recognize-common-law.html

It rebuts the myth that people are automatically deemed common law married if they live together for seven years by listing the requirements for a common law marriage, including: "Live together for a certain number of years (one year in most states)."  That's wrong.

As far as I know, no state requires people to live together for one year before they can declare themselves common law married, and it's certainly not "most states."  In fact, I don't know of any state that sets a requirement for the length of time a couple cohabits at all, except New Hampshire, and that's a weird one--a couple has to live together for three years AND until one of them dies in order to have a common law marriage. 

https://www.nashualaw.com/blog/2017/06/common-law-marriage-in-new-hampshire-may-not-be-what-you-think/

So the statement that a couple must live together for one year in most states is wrong, as is the statement that they must live together for a certain number of years.  If you read common law marriage cases, you'll quickly see that each one is unique, and the decision is based on facts in that particular case, which can include how long they lived together, but it's not definitive.  A common law marriage can be established after cohabiting for a very short time, and living together for 40 years might not support a finding of a common law marriage--it depends on all of the facts in that particular case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Blues said:

I'm guessing you didn't actually check to see if this article is accurate.

If you are concerned about it, I'd suggest that you contact an attorney who deals with such things in TX or wherever it is that is bothering you.¬† ¬†ūüėČ

Good travelin !...............Kirk

Full-time 11+ years...... Now seasonal travelers.
Kirk & Pam's Great RV Adventure

            images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqFswi_bvvojaMvanTWAI

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kirk W said:

If you are concerned about it, I'd suggest that you contact an attorney who deals with such things in TX or wherever it is that is bothering you.¬† ¬†ūüėČ

It looks like you are not concerned when you give bad info or interpretations. I thought you said you were staying off the forums because as you recently posted in the thread "Where is Kirk?" that as a moderator, participation in the forums you moderate or admin causes problems. People are always polite and kind when things go their way. Character can be seen only when things go wrong, or they are corrected on bad info. Participation can make for these kinds of posts and responses. I mean no offense but, respectfully, that was another snarky response because your post only used what you wanted it to say - confirmation bias, and you were called on it.

I have found that these forums are much more pleasant since I blocked a couple of members. I peeked once and it confirmed my choice to block. The egocentric two I blocked. Might need a third as well.

I would have thanked Blues for pointing out what I missed. If good info was my goal, and camaraderie here was the my intent. But then again I am just a member here on these decreasingly active forums.

Edited by RV_

RV/Derek
http://www.rvroadie.com Email on the bottom of my website page.
Retired AF 1971-1998


When you see a worthy man, endeavor to emulate him. When you see an unworthy man, look inside yourself. - Confucius

 

‚ÄúThose who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.‚ÄĚ ... Voltaire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said the couple were declared married. I said their fear of that happening made them choose to domicile elsewhere. It was too big a risk for them to take.

Also, quoting the laws of today may not be relevant to back when this was happening.

Linda

Edited by sandsys

Blog: http://sandcastle.sandsys.org/

Former Rigs: Liesure Travel van, Winnebago View 24H, Winnebago Journey 34Y, Sportsmobile Sprinter conversion van

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sandsys said:

I never said the couple were declared married. I said their fear of that happening made them choose to domicile elsewhere. It was too big a risk for them to take.

Also, quoting the laws of today may not be relevant to back when this was happening.

Linda

Then they should have left Texas the day they got together. Texas has no time element before a couple can declare themselves married, but nor is there any time element when they would be considered legally married without ever declaring themselves so. As I said, I suspect they had gotten some bad advice or believed the common law marriage myths, but I'll drop it anyway.

Edited by Dutch_12078
typo

Dutch
2001 GBM Landau 34' Class A
F-53 Chassis, Triton V10, TST TPMS
2011 Toyota RAV4 4WD/Remco pump
ReadyBrute Elite tow bar/brake system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sandsys said:

Also, quoting the laws of today may not be relevant to back when this was happening.

Well that's the beauty of laws--they're all written down and it can be determined what law was in effect on any given date. 

Common law marriages have been recognized in Texas for a very long time.  The Texas Supreme Court said this, in 1847:  "For the purposes of this suit the marriage was susceptible of proof by evidence of cohabitation, reputation, acknowledgment of parties, reception in the family, and other circumstances from which an inference of marriage could be drawn." 

The Legislature codified this standard in 1970, and its current version is found in the Texas Family Code, Section 2.401, which says a marriage may be proved by evidence that "the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married."

The elements have been the same for over 150 years--agreement, cohabitation, holding out.  If anything, it's gotten harder to prove a common law marriage because in 1989, the Legislature eliminated the language about drawing an inference and the Supreme Court held that that means there must be evidence (either circumstantial or direct) of the agreement.  It's a convoluted decision and not one I'm sure I agree with from a statutory construction standpoint, but it's the law.

I'm with Dutch, and think your friends either got some bad advice or misunderstood the laws themselves.  As you can see from just this thread, there's a lot of misinformation floating around about common law marriage, even from websites that seem authoritative (like the one linked to in this thread--it says "legally reviewed" and "fact checked" right on it so it might be right, right?).

Quick googling and quoting one of the top search results without verifying the information is fraught these days on any subject, and it's particularly annoying when discussing laws because there is an authoritative source for every law--either a court decision or a statute.  Beware sites that say what the law is but don't give a citation to the actual law.  And even if they give a citation, look it up yourself because maybe a Chatbot wrote it and as I pointed out above, they have been known to make up supporting cases for legal propositions out of thin air.  Or it might be what the website quoted in this thread did--had what looked like a link to the law but it was a law about an unrelated subject.

If someone thinks this is too much work, perhaps they should do everyone a favor and just stay out of it.  All of us are capable of quick googling and glancing at the results, and if we're individually misled, so be it.  But we don't need to be spreading the misinformation to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Kirk W locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...