Opinion ID: 2461318
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Alaska Department Of Revenue Has Authority To Determine Residency For Purposes Of Permanent Fund Dividend Eligibility.

Text: The Harrods' brief on appeal first argues that the right to establish citizenship in the United States or any of the 50 states or territories of the United States rests solely with the individual. The Harrods maintain that only individuals can change political associations and that neither the national government nor any local government has the power to sever its ties with them. To support this position, the Harrods rely on two United States Supreme Court cases, but neither of them is applicable to this case. The Harrods cite Afroyim v. Rusk [15] for the proposition that individuals, and not states, possess the right to determine citizenship in any of the 50 states or various territories. Afroyim was a Polish immigrant who obtained United States citizenship and then voted in an election for Israel's Knesset. [16] The Department of State denied Afroyim's application to renew his passport, claiming that he lost his citizenship by voting in a foreign election. [17] The United States Supreme Court reversed, reasoning: [T]he Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship. [18] The Court's holding in Afroyim pertains to issues of United States citizenship, not state residency. When DOR determined that the Harrods were not residents of Alaska for purposes of PFD eligibility, it did not deprive the Harrods of their United States citizenship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Harrods also cite Mitchell v. United States [19] in support of their argument that individuals, not states, have the power to sever residency. Mitchell addressed contracts made during the United States Civil War and specifically addressed whether the plaintiff in that case was domiciled in the United States or the Confederate States. [20] The primary question was not the state in which Mitchell was a resident but rather the country in which he was domiciled. The decision denying the Harrods' PFD applications was based entirely on the conclusion that they were not residents of the State of Alaska for dividend eligibility purposes under the definitions adopted by the legislature. Thus, Mitchell is not helpful to the Harrods' position.
The Harrods next argue that DOR lacks authority to create eligibility requirements for Alaska residency exceeding those set by AS 01.10.055. Alaska Statute 01.10.055 establishes the requirements for Alaska residency, but this statute allows the DOR to establish through regulation a longer minimum period for maintaining a principal place of abode in the state or require other proof to demonstrate the intent to remain in the state indefinitely and to make a home in the state. [21] Alaska Statute 43.23.015(a) requires DOR to adopt regulations for determining the eligibility of individuals for permanent fund dividends. We have repeatedly held that the residency requirement for PFD eligibility may differ from other residency requirements [22] and that [t]he legislature has given broad discretion to the commissioner to determine the factors which define a permanent resident. [23] The Harrods' argument that DOR lacks the authority to establish PFD eligibility requirements that are more stringent than the residency requirements in AS 01.10.055 is incorrect.