Talk:Domicile (law)

message: But I think you are absolutely wrong. In private international law, domicile has nothing to do with where people live except as part of the test to determine whether a domicile of choice has arisen. I corrected the page. Please do not repeat the error unless you can prove me wrong by citing authoritative sources (I admit that I have not looked at PIL for about twenty years, but I don't believe it would have changed on this point). I would be interested to know what other effective systems could be developed to deal with this situation (always selecting the lex situs is totally arbitrary, etc), but I will allow your correction to stand on that point. -David91 16:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Private International Law

message: I realize the United States incorporate the word "State" in the name, indicating a sovereign unit.  The federal structure you mentioned is how the United States was intended to be over 200 years ago (somewhat like the current European Union.  However the simple fact remains that no matter how flexible one's definition of sovereignty is; individual states are by no means sovereign.  Virtually all legal matters can be appealed to a higher federal court, they have no control over their own monetary policy, have no formal relationships with foreign states, and almost anything under their purview can be usurped by the federal government if it really wants to (under the Commerce clause, or whatever).  In fact, they really should be called "provinces" rather than "states" and only continue to use the latter as convention.  Accordingly, I respectfully submit that a word other that sovereign should be used. Martin-C 12:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Under Latvian Civil code a person may have several domiciles at a time!!
I removed that sentence since it is unreferenced, not explained and so does not really make sense in itself and, in the section it was in, was actually irrelevant. --Hydraton31 09:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Domiciles 

message: Can someone contribute for the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom? 86.166.122.209 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK 

message: I thought about adding a theoretical case of dual domicile, but I don't know if it would actually exist in practice. Here's the situation:
* Under US federal law, members of the armed services are not deemed to change their domicile solely because of a service assignment. If they wish, they can keep the domicile they had upon entry into the armed forces throughout their military careers.
* However, AFAIK, this law does not apply to their civilian spouses. They would lose their domicile once they went with their spouse to a new posting.
* Minor children have the domicile of their parents.
* Therefore, a minor child of such a marriage would have two legal domiciles if:
** One parent is a service member with a domicile in State A, but assigned to State B.
** The other parent (1) has domicile in State B (or possibly State C) because he or she followed the spouse to the new assignment, or (2) is a service member who has maintained domicile in a state other than State A.
I actually am a lawyer, but I'm not too familiar with this area. Is there something I don't know about? — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US military dependents? 

message: The KMPG opinion on Chinese tax domiciles is most likely incorrect. The link in the citation doesn't exist anymore but I remember having read it before. It would practically put China in line with the US and Eritrea which contradicts all other information on that matter. It seems that their confusion is rooted in differences of tax residency rules for foreign nationals in China and a simplified understanding of the Chinese Hukou system. Regulations state that Chinese citizens are required to change their domicile registration (hukou) if they do not live in in the original place of registration anymore and give it up altogether when they leave China for more than 2 years. In practice, however, this has rarely been enforced in the past 20 years because a hukou is linked to many basic rights. Changing a hukou is impossible in most cases and if you lose it somehow it can be difficult to regain it. The wording of the Chinese tax regulation that KMPG bases its opinion on is from the early 90s, a time when hukou regulations where enforced by the letter. It is more likely that Chinese tax authorities would determine tax residency by testing if an individual qualifies as "overseas Chinese". Attaining the status of "overseas Chinese" is based on the permenancy of residence. Chinese nationals with a permanent resident card in another country who have resided there for more than 2 years are considered overseas Chinese as well as any Chinese national who has left China for more than 5 years regardless of his residence rights outside of China. This is also reflected by a clarification given by the Chinese tax authorities: "For example, China is the habitual  residence  for  an  individual  who  should  come  back  to  reside  in  China  after  staying, working, visiting families and touring in a place other than China." There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRC domicile 

message: I am a Canadian law professor teaching Conflict of Laws, and offering my students the option of editing Wikipedia articles on this topic. One or more of those students, having identified this article as being of High-Importance, plan to work on it over the course of the term, with particular emphasis on the section for Canada. LexLife (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: Will be changing the intro, some of the description, and the Canadian section  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvijan (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada/Intro/Description