Opinion ID: 1158487
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discretionary Allowable Absence

Text: The Department found that the Brodigans were not absent for any of the reasons specifically allowed in AS 43.23.095 and 15 AAC 23.150 (1989). [11] Therefore, it considered whether the Brodigans satisfied 15 AAC 23.175(d), which grants the Department discretion to approve absences for other purposes. The Department concluded that [t]he pattern demonstrates that they are only temporarily in Alaska each year, for the warmer months, and no longer have the intent to remain permanently in the state. While they have the intent to return every year, they plan only to be here temporarily, not permanently. Thus, the Department did not find the Brodigans' absence allowable. The Brodigans argue that the Department should have found their absence allowable under 15 AAC 23.175(d). The Brodigans assert that the Department's determination of their intent is not supported by substantial evidence because the Department failed to consider the totality of the circumstances which demonstrate their intent to remain Alaska residents. They claim that they have not established a residence outside Alaska and have ties to Alaska, and that therefore the presumption that absences should be shorter than the time spent in Alaska, employed in State, Department of Revenue v. Gazaway, 793 P.2d 1025 (Alaska 1990), should not apply. In Gazaway, the PFD applicants were children who had resided in Alaska before their parents' divorce. 793 P.2d at 1026. Under the custody agreement, the children lived in Oklahoma with their mother, but spent their summer vacations and alternating Christmas and spring vacations with their father in Alaska. Id. The Department denied the children PFDs, claiming that their absence from Alaska was not allowable under a predecessor regulation that was nearly identical to 15 AAC 23.175(d). Id. at 1027. The Department interpreted its regulation permitting absences from Alaska that are temporary in nature and duration to include only absences that are not longer in duration than the time spent in Alaska. Id. The Department found that [t]he children were in Alaska for less than a third of the years in question. Their absences from the state were regular and of longer duration than their presence in the state. In effect, the children were temporarily present in Alaska, not temporarily absent. Id. We held that the Department's interpretation of its regulation was reasonable. Id. Similarly, the Brodigans left Alaska for the majority of the year for three consecutive years. Their absences were regular and of longer duration than their presence in the state. In 1990 they can be considered to have been temporarily present in Alaska, not temporarily absent. The Department did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Brodigans' absence was not temporary, and thus not allowable under 15 AAC 23.175(d). [12]