Property Tax Benefits (Homestead) to Living in AZ? More Specifically Maricopa County.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Thanks for the feedback Zippy. My AZ property taxes are over $3K. If memory serves me right, I was defined as "seasonal" on my Maricopa County tax. I already paid the entire amount as soon as I got their total tax bill. I'll see if I can get a couple hundred back from Maricopa County. I bet that is going to be a challenge.

My plan was to plate a total of 1 car in AZ. MN claims in order to prove I live in AZ the majority of time, I need to have an AZ license, pay at least partial AZ income taxes, and have AZ plates. I got a different answer everytime I asked these questions to MN so I climbed the ranks until I got the boss. What I learned was interesting. MN claims that I need to pay ALL MN income taxes when I "intend on living" in MN even (as an extreme) I spend every day that year in Surprise, AZ. Yet if I split time and am an official Surprise AZ resident (property tax, license, etc) and only over 6 months, they claim I legally have to split time and give MN a cut of MN state taxes based off the percentage of time spent in MN. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Well, as you might guess, AZ says the same thing. They want 100% of the income taxes even if I split time (just as MN does so long is my intent is to live in AZ). Both have a clause that they cannot double tax. Meaning if I pay all AZ or all MN (and am a legal resident of the state), they cannot come after me later for a partial. Then what good is their rule? This is an interesting side note on the "legalize" of state income taxes. Each are fighting to get all of the dollars when you are a resident and split your time if you are not. interesting... If I go forward, I am looking out for #1 and pay the lower AZ state tax all year.

Re: car insurance in Surprise AZ. I live in a very rural area in the lakes area of northern MN. While there is more people in Surprise, I suspect not having the possibility of hail damage (a big total payout for MN) and avoiding accidents due to ice and snow, that will have more impact on the actuaries brain than simply having more people. But we shall see.

All of the math needs to be examined (car insurance, property taxes, income taxes, license plate tabs, logistics, and health insurance). I am pretty sure the net-net will be that it will cost several thousand less $$'s for me in Maricopa County than in MN. My guess is in my situation, it will be a $10K net positive and I assume some preexisting healthcare risk which are real. Something as simple (in my case) as having a mild case of acid reflux might spur adenocarcinoma (esophageal cancer). That would not be covered and a person would be SOL. Also, nothing says that AZ doesn't closes the door on their ability to offer longer total amounts of short term care. To stop healthier people from leaving the pool, they might look at that option. So back to MN I might go. That's because right now, the only exclusive (worthless) plan in AZ does not offer a network in MN. So for that reason alone, I would have to "move back" to MN (flopping of a licence and paying MN taxes). Decisions decisions.

[ScottsdaleMark]

I don't know if you have a tax accountant but if so I would really consult with them, they will know better than anyone else what you really owe where. States and jurisdictions will take all the money they can get, I have had a state try to come after me for state income taxes even though I had not lived there in years and I don't think had even visited the state during the tax years in question.

To them, it's worth a shot, if you send them a check and a return they're happy to cash it. My understanding is that being short on revenue, they just send letters out to everyone who once filed and then filed no longer, on the off chance maybe they're actually still living in the state but failing to file. It's up to you to prove you moved and had a good reason to stop filing in that state. I only even knew they were after me because the letter got forwarded to me.

Anyway, I had to send them my tax returns for the years in question, showing I had filed as a resident of Arizona, and then they saw I did not owe them any tax and left me alone.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to consult a tax accountant just to have peace of mind that you've interpreted things correctly and have all your ducks in a row, especially if you are getting conflicting answers from the governments involved.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by ScottsdaleMark

Maybe it would be worthwhile to consult a tax accountant just to have peace of mind that you've interpreted things correctly and have all your ducks in a row, especially if you are getting conflicting answers from the governments involved.

I hear what you are saying. I would not trust my accountant on this specific topic. Nor any other. Therefore I called the horse's mouth (State of MN Department of Revenue). What happens all too often, rules that are not used very often are inaccurately explained by state employees. Even written words on tax policies do not always cover the meaning for every situation. That's the case here.

In my situation, I kept on challenging their logic as to why BOTH AZ and MN are claiming I pay them everything when I am registered as a resident and both want a portion if I am not legally a resident in their state. Then I challenged them how I could possibly distribute that revenue anyways (I make less $$'s in the summer when I am in MN). When they gave me a simplistic answer, I explained how it would be impossible to calculate accurately. I explained that if AZ is right, then I have shorted them for many years. And it's their turn to get overpaid. Because I can point to their rules that says I owe MN zero. They can then fight it out between the two states because I am in the middle. That is how and why I was getting different answers (by pushing the flawed logic). There is no official precedence (commented on in the link below) but rather a wish list that both states want all of the $$'s. My questions were triggered because of this old topic https://www.minnpost.com/politics-po...ax-may-not-fly called a snowbird" tax.

So I climbed the ranks until I got the head MN department guy. The guy at the state then had to research this himself. Therefore no accountant is going to be fluent on this if the state employee in charge doesn't have the answer. But I saved my digitally saved my voicemail from this employee's explanation as well as his contact information. I fed this to my accountant. It took me several hours to get to this point. Most accountants are going to guess just like the 3 initial state employees.

[ScottsdaleMark]

I hear you. It's hard to pull off snowbird tax savings until you're retired, it seems like, because they can and will tax the income wherever you are when it's earned. (Assuming the person is reporting it fairly, that is. I have no doubt many people aren't as honest as you in reporting what they made in what state, and I fear that byzantine and targeted tax laws like that "snowbird tax" just encourage more people to be tax scofflaws.)

The article you linked to is interesting, what a misguided attempt. Why drive out people who indeed ARE contributing to the state of Minnesota every day they're here by paying for goods and services. Kind of a stupid quote from Dayton in there, sheesh. Like you're up there for 5 months 29 days using the library and the public services but not spending one dollar in the state. You're still an economic positive for the state even if you don't pay any income tax, I would think, because of all the money spent on housing, goods, services, etc., as well as all the sales taxes you pay. I can't get over how tone-deaf that quote was. Maybe he just takes it really personally that so many people don't choose to stick it out in the winter, haha.