that you show an actual and physical abandonment of the old on the sile you show an intent not to return to the old on the sile except temporarily you move to a new state and you demonstrate the of their old imus i'll in fact they spent half their time there over this eight year period one year period and in several years for those years they spent more time in their old domicile and they also showed  the show an intense not to restrain itself temporarily the canes had the burden of proof of all those elements and we submit that the standard of proof should be clear and convincing on those  now the type of facts that both the department's regulations and the case law says the type of facts that you look to to determine whether there's been a physical abandonment and facts showing an intent not to return first specially three or four types of facts first of all you compare the time spent in east each jurisdiction and if you look at the regulations that's one hundred dot three where the case under the case law where you spend more time in the new jurisdiction that alone is not enough to abandon your domicile alice specifically if you look  at the kempe case out of california which we cite and to show it's case in illinois an older case in illinois for mr sholes had no more permanent residence in that residence in illinois and he was wandering off in california where he died looking for a new domicile but he left his violin his personal papers back in illinois they still held that his he had not abandoned his down the side so time spent should be compared but do nude state but they haven't this is what makes this easy these types of cases under this department of revenues the program difficult and requires some rethinking of of these elements is typical old case you left one place and move to another but now we're dealing with a client with with parties here who have enough wealth that they actually have a full home in illinois and a first home in florida they have social contacts in illinois and they have business contacts in illinois they don't have any business contacts in florida because they're retired they have social contacts or so you have to look at the four elements have they physically abandoned illinois clearly not they're still spending half their time here in the house that has been their house and their family home for forty years had they intended straighted intent not to return except temporarily a separate element from those elements your honor mentions  voting getting a driver's license those are all showing an intent to make a new dhamma sile but it can't be established until you leave the open until you just show that you're not going to go back to the olympics have temporarily well there's facts here that i suppose a person who owns  realize your regulation really doesn't make sense if you read the start to finish either it's to be judged by temporary residence in illinois or it should be judged by temporary residence in florida if you read this the guy completely left except he kept his most intimate and personal possessions in the way and in the correct case out of florida where they talk about they were for x years who they were in california the california case you know eighty eighty five percent of their time and they didn't even have a permanent residence in illinois illinois and under a statute very similar if not identical to the illinois statute the court the california courts that they're not california residents they keep their their business going at all in the way th their their personal contacts are back in on the way here we have the only thing on the record we don't know where the canes you know if they moved all their you know family memorabilia from forty years raising their children if they move those to for the record doesn't show the record shows they kept their most valuable r v painted but it's not where your wallet is where your heart is so the question is whether the facts on the record that share their business and social relationships and their personal interests and their or personal avocation of continuing her interior design work in best of those situations they could have moved the locus of those things the floor of the illinois statute on interior design doesn't require you to be a resident and in fact the record shows that she pulled out the form and maintained her illinois residence she didn't change reson seem to think well this is a close case and remember they can't win just by showing and moved  being buried in four of them they have a good case but they can both things can be changed in a trap very resident you know registering to vote the case is jackson's estate is only evidence but the first element intent to style elsewhere they ceased to be illinois resident yes he's a establish the first two things physical abandonment and intent to return telling you look at the category of time spent your balance times you look at the category of their business and social connections and you do a balance of those you look at the category of where most intimate and personal possessions are and where is the locus of their personal interests that's the schultz case and the balancing of the business and social connections that's  case and the reg at three twenty see examples two and three and the first one the time spent balancing that was is the reg after three examples under the reg three twenty c one two and three and somebody who has a full residence for a full physical house with physical possessions in both places this comes under the you know balancing the looking at the time spent the categories of facts times and i can't figure out from your article where the current wars are ok there's two elements that we say they have proof and there's three categories of facts that you look at to see with a for ok we'll the two of us are physical abandonment actually but what do you mean by  in both locations but they have two houses you look at balance their business and social connections in both locations and you look at where they were as a list of their personal interests in their most intimate possessions not where the most expensive possessions are and it's pfizer social interest not how their records show that their personal interests work continue to trade stocks and ideas and interior decorating that's in illinois continues to be in illinois they have the burden of proof of these issues the fact that they and organizational memberships to purchase vision telephone other utility usage over derision time yes and they had except for the registering to vote and things like that those were equal in both places will certainly didn't pretty equal on all of those except for you know time spent and some say something i mean it's really kind of fill point zero four percent over nine years in one place with the other it's not going to be the determining factor you have to look at what they abandon in illinois they kept all their social connections up they kept their memberships up they kept their membership as members of the birds up they kept their business licenses here they kept their trading stock traded companies here they even established a new stock trading company and it was here they have the burden of proof they failed to make show something and what is intent to return well except temporarily another words and that what's going on you didn't it could have been if they could have shown that they were you know again to those first two things you look at all these three categories of facts i talk about and you have to balance them and then they have the burden of proof they have to show clearly conclusively when they're spending half their time here on the other half their time here in some states when they're continuing their their personal interests and business licenses here and making them the locus they could have could have look at she could have changed that to florida cause you don't have to be you know have to be have a you know an element address to have that but she did she kept it here they kept everything here except the things they need to do to show intent to move to a new domicile but they didn't show intent to do anything last in illinois i guess we're going to boil it down to that they have to show us something is less and yelling away either then registering to vote in carson and you know their business and social connections up here personal interest as far as we know the only things are here and the time spent here again is hard to say you've abandoned the place when you're spending more time here ok but again what is your through your opponents who give you a little bit of and country to their own regulation they have to show that somehow establishing a common selling other state is not sufficient proof that you abandon illinois and secondly let's assume for the purpose argue that they prove that they would have to prove that every year that they came in only came here for some purpose that was other than temporary or presenter and the evidence is that they never came to life for any purpose other than to leave at a certain point to go back to court so that a person able to prove the two things they need to to establish  you can't prove that you came to one with the intention of staying indefinitely which is what the regulation requires when you say you travel somewhere to stay indefinitely you can't show that if in the other state you've got your driver's license your borders registration all your bank  illinois told their children in illinois they would not be coming back and then move to florida they pull howard hughes a stay in a hotel they take cabs everywhere twenty years later the department be telling you they have not abandoned illinois and i would agree with  short by what happens if they happen to stay indefinitely let's say the canes came to illinois and one year decide either either for whatever reason they overstay in their apartments you let's see what starts to happen after a certain time they aren't able to drive because they have to take an affirmative act of getting the one guy was license at a certain point in time there are unable to vote because they have taken affirmative act of registering to vote at the certain times or summonses for jury duty arriving in florida they're not showing up for and there's a summons for their arrest in florida i mean there's things they have to do in illinois to show they're staying here indefinitely and so at no time in the depositions mr cain or in any of the secular facts where's your evidence that the canes ever left florida with the intention of staying in illinois for any period other than just summer months california was gone for years and he would write letters ok she's saying i'm stay through the winter the premier nicely in the hotel here and the court found that he had not abandoned his only homicide why not because he liked the stuff here but because he didn't take any actions in california to really equestrian team for the olympics before she leaves illinois she gets a real estate license in illinois because she tells her fi she's going to come back rich and famous and buy a farm and she leaves her stuff in storage takes her course which is a more valuable possession for as part of her of her trading business  she moved to pennsylvania she's there for only six case and they find out later she never mailed which says i moved to pennsylvania explanation mark and the court found that she had demonstrated her intent to be a pennsylvania resident to abandon illinois when she's done in the six days in the six day she a closer only bank accounts jet open bank accounts and pennsylvania shit find a place to live and she had written a letter and moved to pennsylvania it's not the question of a matter of time it's what you do with that time not in one of the time they've been in illinois says thinking ninety five and the but what does fit what does fit is if you look at the examples on that they have on the individuals who do retire they have three examples in the regulation about it a couple for example in minnesota who has a business and the gentleman retires minnesota and he has a house  connections implored infective see their connections in illinois they serve on various boards in florida they serve a number of organizations of florida not that this mean they have to require to a two to resign from every only participation but they have shown that they set down roots in florida which is what they were given requires paying millions it would it would not be in a considerable amount so they did not walk into just a pay five hundred dollar tax and be done with it type situation so i would point out one other thing they say this in the record they have two point five million dollars that they had and charitable donations over that period of time that's more than what illinois assessed him for that period of time and they gave it to children's memorial to like force hospital to lake forest college and to some charities at some terrible decisions in florida so this was not a prior decision of judge where that the department's illegal action which they admitted of not using only subpoenas under the income tax act and of violating the fair pretty orderly act by getting statements proves without a doubt that there the department introduce at the piece of paper and put on more evidence they can't just put these paper down and sit down and say we have reviewed fashion case that was that that would be the pressures to us if that is not reversed and that's that's why as a contingent present bill there's federal courts that approved it i understand the only supreme court has not directly addressed that issue that there are cases which will serve as case only deals with when you're trying to attack the final judgment for reasons other than what the judge stated that's not what we're doing here we're checking the prior the style the circular and wrong we've set it out and i understand the court struck with these things let me just suggest one last time the decisional framework for this you have four elements separate elements to show a change of dhamma sile physical at and you balance them it's a weighing and balancing and you weigh them not only each one way it but you weigh the three categories against each other time spent in location business and social and personal interests and personal most intimate personal possessions those three categories you a tie i'm spent you weigh just the social contacts you weigh personal and intimate possessions and you weigh the three categories against one another and i they've proven the first two elements they can't win just by proving moving to florida and making it demonstrating intent to make florida the permit domicile it does not do it they have to prove all for they do have the burden of proof the case rather be cited in our  chief his argument is circular yeah we you know that the department did violate the act technically the information they actually wanted to record shows was only the addresses which they could have gotten without violating the act but they did violate the act but there's no prejudice their argument about prejudice is where we had to defend the notice of you know deficiency until the notice of a deficiency that was prejudicial because it was right because there was prejudice so it's a circular argument and it doesn't get anywhere it doesn't prove