AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think this family thought they were DC residents?

I,don't know the answer to this, but if they paid DC income taxes , along with their property taxes, it's not as clear cut as some of you make it out to be. I think a lot will be determined what they used as their primary address when reporting to Uncle Sam.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the family was reported by someone. And there was an investigation. And they checked to see where they claimed was heir home address as employees of DC.

Surprise - on all of their employment paperwork (insurance, paychecks, taxes etc.) they had other addresses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the law you have to "reside" in DC or pay tuition. It has been that way since 1960. Under no definition of "reside" did this family qualify for DCPS. There is no mention of ownership of property, just "reside" which is easily proven.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/hr7124/text

I would assume that the AG wouldn't have brought such a high profile case if they didn't feel certain with their evidence and the law. This family clearly knew the problem and continue to enroll their children.

The definition of "reside" pre-2008 was to own property. Internal documents changed the meaning but the new definition was never communicated to the public. If it was communicated to the public, can you provide a link?

Not true. You know what has never qualified pre and post 2008 as showing residency? Mortgage payment on a property in DC. I know this for a fact since I have been registering kids since 2001. Back in the good old days (ore lottery, pre charter, pre Rhee) you still had to show a paycheck. We moved here when I had to wait in line overnight to get a spot at SWS at Peabody. The only form of "residency" we had was our newly minted mortgage papers. No car and no paycheck yet. The kind lady at the office held our spot until my DH could get his office to give him an employment verification with our home address so they knew we were paying income tax in DC within the boundaries. To this day a mortgage is still not proof of residency.

So. You can have paycheck go to a rental house and then you are a resident?

A large percentage of DC are renters.

[Anonymous]

Of course you can rent and be a resident...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think this family thought they were DC residents?

I,don't know the answer to this, but if they paid DC income taxes , along with their property taxes, it's not as clear cut as some of you make it out to be. I think a lot will be determined what they used as their primary address when reporting to Uncle Sam.

Yeah, okay. I'm sure that the Hills paid income taxes in DC all those years, which is why they withdrew their children from DCPS in 2013.

[Anonymous]

Even IF they paid income taxes in DC, wouldn't they have owed them in Maryland too given that they lived in Maryland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the law you have to "reside" in DC or pay tuition. It has been that way since 1960. Under no definition of "reside" did this family qualify for DCPS. There is no mention of ownership of property, just "reside" which is easily proven.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/hr7124/text

I would assume that the AG wouldn't have brought such a high profile case if they didn't feel certain with their evidence and the law. This family clearly knew the problem and continue to enroll their children.

The definition of "reside" pre-2008 was to own property. Internal documents changed the meaning but the new definition was never communicated to the public. If it was communicated to the public, can you provide a link?

Not true. You know what has never qualified pre and post 2008 as showing residency? Mortgage payment on a property in DC. I know this for a fact since I have been registering kids since 2001. Back in the good old days (ore lottery, pre charter, pre Rhee) you still had to show a paycheck. We moved here when I had to wait in line overnight to get a spot at SWS at Peabody. The only form of "residency" we had was our newly minted mortgage papers. No car and no paycheck yet. The kind lady at the office held our spot until my DH could get his office to give him an employment verification with our home address so they knew we were paying income tax in DC within the boundaries. To this day a mortgage is still not proof of residency.

So. You can have paycheck go to a rental house and then you are a resident?

You have to use the address where you live. If that's in a rental property, that's fine; if that is owner occupied, that's fine too. But you are not allowed to rent or buy a place where you don't live and then claim that as your residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the law you have to "reside" in DC or pay tuition. It has been that way since 1960. Under no definition of "reside" did this family qualify for DCPS. There is no mention of ownership of property, just "reside" which is easily proven.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/hr7124/text

I would assume that the AG wouldn't have brought such a high profile case if they didn't feel certain with their evidence and the law. This family clearly knew the problem and continue to enroll their children.

The definition of "reside" pre-2008 was to own property. Internal documents changed the meaning but the new definition was never communicated to the public. If it was communicated to the public, can you provide a link?

Not true. You know what has never qualified pre and post 2008 as showing residency? Mortgage payment on a property in DC. I know this for a fact since I have been registering kids since 2001. Back in the good old days (ore lottery, pre charter, pre Rhee) you still had to show a paycheck. We moved here when I had to wait in line overnight to get a spot at SWS at Peabody. The only form of "residency" we had was our newly minted mortgage papers. No car and no paycheck yet. The kind lady at the office held our spot until my DH could get his office to give him an employment verification with our home address so they knew we were paying income tax in DC within the boundaries. To this day a mortgage is still not proof of residency.

So. You can have paycheck go to a rental house and then you are a resident?

A large percentage of DC are renters.

My question is if I rent a house to you but I continue to get mail at my house that I rent to you, am I a resident?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the law you have to "reside" in DC or pay tuition. It has been that way since 1960. Under no definition of "reside" did this family qualify for DCPS. There is no mention of ownership of property, just "reside" which is easily proven.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/hr7124/text

I would assume that the AG wouldn't have brought such a high profile case if they didn't feel certain with their evidence and the law. This family clearly knew the problem and continue to enroll their children.

The definition of "reside" pre-2008 was to own property. Internal documents changed the meaning but the new definition was never communicated to the public. If it was communicated to the public, can you provide a link?

Not true. You know what has never qualified pre and post 2008 as showing residency? Mortgage payment on a property in DC. I know this for a fact since I have been registering kids since 2001. Back in the good old days (ore lottery, pre charter, pre Rhee) you still had to show a paycheck. We moved here when I had to wait in line overnight to get a spot at SWS at Peabody. The only form of "residency" we had was our newly minted mortgage papers. No car and no paycheck yet. The kind lady at the office held our spot until my DH could get his office to give him an employment verification with our home address so they knew we were paying income tax in DC within the boundaries. To this day a mortgage is still not proof of residency.

So. You can have paycheck go to a rental house and then you are a resident?

A large percentage of DC are renters.

My question is if I rent a house to you but I continue to get mail at my house that I rent to you, am I a resident?

Do you live there or not?
If yes, resident.
If no, non resident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even IF they paid income taxes in DC, wouldn't they have owed them in Maryland too given that they lived in Maryland?

It's not clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the law you have to "reside" in DC or pay tuition. It has been that way since 1960. Under no definition of "reside" did this family qualify for DCPS. There is no mention of ownership of property, just "reside" which is easily proven.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/hr7124/text

I would assume that the AG wouldn't have brought such a high profile case if they didn't feel certain with their evidence and the law. This family clearly knew the problem and continue to enroll their children.

The definition of "reside" pre-2008 was to own property. Internal documents changed the meaning but the new definition was never communicated to the public. If it was communicated to the public, can you provide a link?

Not true. You know what has never qualified pre and post 2008 as showing residency? Mortgage payment on a property in DC. I know this for a fact since I have been registering kids since 2001. Back in the good old days (ore lottery, pre charter, pre Rhee) you still had to show a paycheck. We moved here when I had to wait in line overnight to get a spot at SWS at Peabody. The only form of "residency" we had was our newly minted mortgage papers. No car and no paycheck yet. The kind lady at the office held our spot until my DH could get his office to give him an employment verification with our home address so they knew we were paying income tax in DC within the boundaries. To this day a mortgage is still not proof of residency.

So. You can have paycheck go to a rental house and then you are a resident?

A large percentage of DC are renters.

My question is if I rent a house to you but I continue to get mail at my house that I rent to you, am I a resident?

Do you live there or not?
If yes, resident.
If no, non resident.

What is the definition of "live there", 1 day a week, 1/2 time , > 33%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even IF they paid income taxes in DC, wouldn't they have owed them in Maryland too given that they lived in Maryland?

It's not clear.

What makes residency a complicated legal concept is that each state (and some cities) have their own definition of residency, and it usually revolves around maximizing their tax haul. Most states with income tax are eager to tag people who spend some time there as "part-year residents" so that they can claim part of their income. The most extreme example is professional athletes, most states consider visiting teams to be part-year residents and tax them proportionately. States are eager to grant the minor benefits of residency -- fishing and hunting licences, library privileges and so forth -- to part-year residents in order to strengthen their tax claim.

I own a home in DC and a home in another state, and spend part of the year in each, and I can say that is basically impossible to know with certainty what the tax law is, even if you hire a professional the most they can do is give you advice on how to avoid getting audited.

It's interesting that DC uses the term "residence," because the proper term under the law is "domicile." Domicile is a critical concept in US law because of our federal system, you are bound by the laws of your state of domicile even when outside of it. The Wikipedia is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law) Domicile is not at all a cut-and-dried issue, it is frequently litigated and its foundation is almost entirely common law and case law.

[Anonymous]

A case like this is a serious Career Limiting Move for a police officer. Part of the job of an officer is giving testimony in court cases. If an officer has a history of truthfulness issues that has to be disclosed to the defense, and generally means the officer will no longer be considered a reliable witness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even IF they paid income taxes in DC, wouldn't they have owed them in Maryland too given that they lived in Maryland?

It's not clear.

What makes residency a complicated legal concept is that each state (and some cities) have their own definition of residency, and it usually revolves around maximizing their tax haul. Most states with income tax are eager to tag people who spend some time there as "part-year residents" so that they can claim part of their income. The most extreme example is professional athletes, most states consider visiting teams to be part-year residents and tax them proportionately. States are eager to grant the minor benefits of residency -- fishing and hunting licences, library privileges and so forth -- to part-year residents in order to strengthen their tax claim.

I own a home in DC and a home in another state, and spend part of the year in each, and I can say that is basically impossible to know with certainty what the tax law is, even if you hire a professional the most they can do is give you advice on how to avoid getting audited.

It's interesting that DC uses the term "residence," because the proper term under the law is "domicile." Domicile is a critical concept in US law because of our federal system, you are bound by the laws of your state of domicile even when outside of it. The Wikipedia is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law) Domicile is not at all a cut-and-dried issue, it is frequently litigated and its foundation is almost entirely common law and case law.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It is very confusing.

Many states have very clear definitions for colleges in state tuition. Public school residency rules are very vague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone explain how they sent their kids to Eaton/Deal/Wilson in the first place if the rental property was in a different catchment?

They same why our family and others have, playing the lottery. Eaton has always been a school to accept many OOB families. It's nothing new. Along with Hearst.

And Eaton has long had a reputation as a place where the politically well-connected win more seats in the lottery than probability would predict.