Court Opinion

ID: 9845037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:14:05.957692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:50.634824
License: Public Domain

FLETCHER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The majority changes the well-established rule that an existing domicile continues until a new domicile is established and ignores the fact that under federal tax law, a person may be a “bona fide resident” of a foreign country and still maintain a U. S. domicile. Therefore, I dissent.
In Williams v. Williams, this Court, held that for the purpose of the residency requirements for divorce, “a domicile once established continues until a new domicile is acquired.”3
4 In order to establish a new domicile, “a person must actually remove to another place with a present intention of remaining there as his place of domicile.”5 Even after a physical relocation, where there is an absence of intent to remain in the new location, the prior domicile continues.6
*111Decided June 7, 2004
Reconsideration denied June 28, 2004.
Here, the evidence established that Mrs. Conrad lived in DeKalb County from 1995 until 1999. In 1999, her husband accepted a temporary assignment with his Atlanta-based employer to move to South Africa. Mrs. Conrad testified that the move was temporary, she maintained her Georgia’s driver’s license and voter registration, and her intent was to retain her domicile in DeKalb County. The parties separated in 2003 and Mrs. Conrad now works for the Department of Defense in Baghdad, Iraq on a temporary work permit. Following the conclusion of this job assignment, she intends to return to Georgia. This evidence clearly shows that Mrs. Conrad established her domicile in DeKalb County, intends to maintain DeKalb County as her domicile, and has not acquired a new domicile.
The trial court and the majority focus primarily on the fact that the parties stated in federal tax returns that they were “bona fide residents” of South Africa and conclude that this fact presented conflicting evidence regarding Mrs. Conrad’s intent. Claiming bona fide resident status of a foreign country for federal income tax purposes, however, is not contrary to an intent to retain a domicile in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service specifically recognizes that a “bona fide residence” may be different from a domicile: “Your bona fide residence is not necessarily the same as your domicile. Your domicile is your permanent home, the place to which you always return or intend to return.”7 Because claiming a bona fide residence in one place for federal tax purposes is not inconsistent with maintaining a domicile in another, the trial court erred in concluding that there was a conflict in the evidence that should be resolved against Mrs. Conrad.
The evidence demonstrated that Mrs. Conrad’s domicile remained in DeKalb County, Georgia, and the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hunstein and Justice Carley join in this dissent.
*112Weinstock & Scavo, Adam M. Gleklen, Alyson F. Finkelstein, for appellant.
Kupferman & Golden, Gregory D. Golden, for appellee.

 Williams v. Williams, 191 Ga. 437, 438 (12 SE2d 352) (1940).

 Bass v. Bass, 222 Ga. 378 (1) (149 SE2d 818) (1966).

 Id. at 382, quoting Worsham v. Ligon, 144 Ga. 707 (2) (87 SE 1025) (1916).

 I.R.S. Publication 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad, at 14 (2003). See also Swenson v. Thomas, 164 F2d 783, 784 (5th Cir. 1947) (provision that allows “bona fide resident” of foreign country to exclude certain income for federal tax purposes “says nothing of domicile, or changing that. Domicile is not changed by foreign residence so long as there is an intention to return home.”).