In support of his conclusion, the Administrative Law Judge relied on, among other factors, an entry in Mrs. Rauscher's diary made in 1988 which stated clearly petitioners' intention of abandoning their New York domicile. The Administrative Law Judge found that petitioners' declaration of Florida domicile, Florida voting registration and homestead exemption are not as persuasive in establishing domicile as the above actions of petitioners. The Administrative Law Judge also found that petitioners failed to introduce any evidence as to their general habits of life, e.g., social ties, to support their claimed change of domicile. On exception, petitioners continue to argue that they meet every single requirement to establish domicile in Florida and their intent to abandon New York as their domicile has been clearly demonstrated by their actions. Petitioners also continue to argue that the Administrative Law Judge erred or improperly phrased several findings of fact.
Petitioners assert that the car was registered in New York by mistake.
In addition, Mr. Rauscher asserts that he surrendered his New York driver's license in May of 1977. Finally, petitioners argue that, although they had property in trust with a lawyer in New York, they also had property in trust with lawyers in Vermont and North Carolina. In response, the Division of Taxation states that petitioners have raised no new arguments on exception and it will rely on its hearing brief and the determination of the Administrative Law Judge. The Division asks that the Administrative Law Judge's determination be sustained in full. In their reply brief, petitioners make the same arguments they made in their exception and brief in support.