Opinion ID: 2582501
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The department has broad authority to administer the PFD program.

Text: The PFD is an economic benefit that Alaska residents are entitled to receive if they meet certain eligibility requirements. A threshold requirement is having the requisite intent to remain in Alaska, although other factors are used in determining eligibility. [45] The PFD program is designed, in part, to encourage the maintenance of Alaska residence and to reduce population turnover. [46] The legislature delegated broad authority to the Department of Revenue to administer the PFD program. Alaska Statute 43.23.055 sets out the duties of the department and states in relevant part that the department shall adopt regulations under [the Administrative Procedure Act] that establish procedures and time limits for claiming a permanent fund dividend. [47] The legislature also delegated power to the commissioner to adopt regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62) for determining the eligibility of individuals for permanent fund dividends. [48] The commissioner may also use other information available from other state departments or agencies to determine the eligibility of an individual. [49] In addition, the commissioner shall consider all relevant circumstances in determining the eligibility of an individual. [50] We have held that AS 43.23.015(a) requires the commissioner to adopt regulations setting substantive eligibility requirements for permanent fund dividends. [51] One objective of [AS 43.23.015(a)] is to require the commissioner to make substantive regulations resolving questions as to who is and who is not a permanent resident [52] and thus eligible for a PFD. We have repeatedly stated that the residency requirement for PFD eligibility may differ from other residency requirements. [53] And we have concluded that [t]he legislature has given broad discretion to the commissioner to determine the factors which define a permanent resident. [54] Permanent residency requires physical presence and an intent to remain in Alaska. [55] We reasoned in a divorce case that the intent to remain permanently must mean an intent to remain indefinitely because many Alaskans likely intend to retire elsewhere and thus would not otherwise be considered residents. [56] The same reasoning applies in the PFD context. [T]he Department must be able to reasonably define statutory terms to insure that the permanent fund is protected for the legitimate claims of permanent residents. [57] In Brodigan v. State, Department of Revenue, a PFD case in which the department's regulation governing allowable absences for medical treatment was challenged, we stated that [b]ecause the Department must administer the PFD program and apply the statutory standard, the commissioner needed to decide the meaning of `medical treatment' [as used in AS 43.23.095(8)(D)]. [58] We determined that the department's regulation defining the term was consistent with the statute even though it was more restrictive than the statute. [59] Thus, we have accorded the department broad authority in defining statutory terms, determining eligibility, and administering the PFD program. It is clear that we have allowed the commissioner to define statutory terms more restrictively in its regulations in order to further the goals of the PFD program. We conclude in this case that it is within the delegated authority of the commissioner to define the term lawfully admitted for permanent residency in the United States found in the PFD statute more broadly than the federal definition in order (1) to avoid unconstitutionality and (2) to be consistent with the requirement of legal presence coupled with the requisite intent to remain in Alaska.