Is this residency fraud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Establishing a physical presence ... for a continuous period of time" =/= owning a condo and paying taxes on it.

The condo isn't your residence. The Shaw house is.

Says you, not the law. She can declare her residence at either property. She will spend time at both for a continuous period of time, since these will both be family properties.

You can't just "declare" a residence based on your own beliefs. FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically fraud, but as a taxpayer, I wouldn't really take much issue with it. You're paying taxes.

Where's the fraud? The rules on DCPS residency don't state that a child has to sleep somewhere a certain % of the nights in the year to have by-right access to an in-boundary school. That's the case is some upscale jurisdictions, e.g, tony suburbs of Boston and NYC, but not in DC.
Residency in DC is all about residency docs and where one rents, owns and pays taxes. No lease holder, family property, no fraud.

The fraud is lying on the paperwork. If you do that, under D.C. Code §38-312 you could be subject to a fine or imprisonment because you're knowingly supplying false information "in connection with student residency verification." You may try to argue that your intent was only to commit boundary fraud, but you're submitting a fake address and documents on the form used for residency verification.

Total BS. Cut the scare tactics. OP will own the condo and will not rent it out, enabling her to spend as much or as little time there as she chooses at the property, at any point in any year she owns it. Fines and imprisonment are not for people in this situation. You're giving us a visceral reaction, not a strong legal argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Establishing a physical presence ... for a continuous period of time" =/= owning a condo and paying taxes on it.

The condo isn't your residence. The Shaw house is.

Says you, not the law. She can declare her residence at either property. She will spend time at both for a continuous period of time, since these will both be family properties.

You can't just "declare" a residence based on your own beliefs. FFS.

No, you can't. But you can follow the law in good faith based on different beliefs than your Big Brother creepy ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Establishing a physical presence ... for a continuous period of time" =/= owning a condo and paying taxes on it.

The condo isn't your residence. The Shaw house is.

Says you, not the law. She can declare her residence at either property. She will spend time at both for a continuous period of time, since these will both be family properties.

You can't just "declare" a residence based on your own beliefs. FFS.

No, you can't. But you can follow the law in good faith based on different beliefs than your Big Brother creepy ones.

It's Big Brother creepy to say that you can't lie about your address? You KNOW it's not in good faith and that you don't actually reside in the condo. You are creating different rules that you think apply to you due to your ability to purchase both a condo in NW and a home in Shaw. It's disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's an easy answer to this question, OP. At any point in the process, would you have to tell DCPS that your child's address is anything other than the home address you teach your child?

Even easier answer. Teach your child that the family owns and occupies two houses, and one house gives him or her the right to attend the school. Even a kindergarten kid can grasp the concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically fraud, but as a taxpayer, I wouldn't really take much issue with it. You're paying taxes.

Where's the fraud? The rules on DCPS residency don't state that a child has to sleep somewhere a certain % of the nights in the year to have by-right access to an in-boundary school. That's the case is some upscale jurisdictions, e.g, tony suburbs of Boston and NYC, but not in DC.
Residency in DC is all about residency docs and where one rents, owns and pays taxes. No lease holder, family property, no fraud.

The fraud is lying on the paperwork. If you do that, under D.C. Code §38-312 you could be subject to a fine or imprisonment because you're knowingly supplying false information "in connection with student residency verification." You may try to argue that your intent was only to commit boundary fraud, but you're submitting a fake address and documents on the form used for residency verification.

Total BS. Cut the scare tactics. OP will own the condo and will not rent it out, enabling her to spend as much or as little time there as she chooses at the property, at any point in any year she owns it. Fines and imprisonment are not for people in this situation. You're giving us a visceral reaction, not a strong legal argument.

Um, I'd like to see your stronger legal argument, other than apparently believing that the law is "not for people" who can own a condo and a house in DC at the same time?? The form is pretty clear: If you make false statements on the form, you're subject to fine or imprisonment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an easy answer to this question, OP. At any point in the process, would you have to tell DCPS that your child's address is anything other than the home address you teach your child?

Even easier answer. Teach your child that the family owns and occupies two houses, and one house gives him or her the right to attend the school. Even a kindergarten kid can grasp the concept.

Teach Larla "the rules are not for us, because we can afford to buy a condo and a house."

[Anonymous]

Why does someone who owns two homes have more rights than someone who owns one and rents one, or rents two?

The owner pays property tax directly; the owner-renter and the renter both pay property taxes via their rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Establishing a physical presence ... for a continuous period of time" =/= owning a condo and paying taxes on it.

The condo isn't your residence. The Shaw house is.

Says you, not the law. She can declare her residence at either property. She will spend time at both for a continuous period of time, since these will both be family properties.

You can't just "declare" a residence based on your own beliefs. FFS.

No, you can't. But you can follow the law in good faith based on different beliefs than your Big Brother creepy ones.

It's Big Brother creepy to say that you can't lie about your address? You KNOW it's not in good faith and that you don't actually reside in the condo. You are creating different rules that you think apply to you due to your ability to purchase both a condo in NW and a home in Shaw. It's disgusting.

Not sure who you're arguing with (I'm not OP). But you can keep your holier-than-thou screed, thanks. OP can do without it in the interests of serving her family, and so can the rest of us who don't see 21st century urban life with children in black and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does someone who owns two homes have more rights than someone who owns one and rents one, or rents two?

The owner pays property tax directly; the owner-renter and the renter both pay property taxes via their rent.

Hint: real property ownership has been the building block of our economic system for around 400 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an easy answer to this question, OP. At any point in the process, would you have to tell DCPS that your child's address is anything other than the home address you teach your child?

Even easier answer. Teach your child that the family owns and occupies two houses, and one house gives him or her the right to attend the school. Even a kindergarten kid can grasp the concept.

Teach Larla "the rules are not for us, because we can afford to buy a condo and a house."

No, teach Larla to be resourceful within the law to prosper, and to ignore wise asses like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Establishing a physical presence ... for a continuous period of time" =/= owning a condo and paying taxes on it.

The condo isn't your residence. The Shaw house is.

Says you, not the law. She can declare her residence at either property. She will spend time at both for a continuous period of time, since these will both be family properties.

You can't just "declare" a residence based on your own beliefs. FFS.

No, you can't. But you can follow the law in good faith based on different beliefs than your Big Brother creepy ones.

It's Big Brother creepy to say that you can't lie about your address? You KNOW it's not in good faith and that you don't actually reside in the condo. You are creating different rules that you think apply to you due to your ability to purchase both a condo in NW and a home in Shaw. It's disgusting.

Not sure who you're arguing with (I'm not OP). But you can keep your holier-than-thou screed, thanks. OP can do without it in the interests of serving her family, and so can the rest of us who don't see 21st century urban life with children in black and white.

OP's question was "is this residence fraud"? My answer is: providing fake documents and addresses in connection with the residency verification process is illegal and subject to fines/imprisonment in DC. You can feel she's justified all you want, but you can't change the fact that she's falsely (and knowingly) affirming that she resides in the condo in order to gain a public benefit (perceived better school).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an easy answer to this question, OP. At any point in the process, would you have to tell DCPS that your child's address is anything other than the home address you teach your child?

Even easier answer. Teach your child that the family owns and occupies two houses, and one house gives him or her the right to attend the school. Even a kindergarten kid can grasp the concept.

Teach Larla "the rules are not for us, because we can afford to buy a condo and a house."

No, teach Larla to be resourceful within the law to prosper, and to ignore wise asses like you.

No, teach Larla that you can violate the law with impunity when you feel you're justified, because you probably won't get caught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's an easy answer to this question, OP. At any point in the process, would you have to tell DCPS that your child's address is anything other than the home address you teach your child?

Where is the child's residence? If you fill out a form officially or at a doctor's office, for example, is the child's address the grandmother's. A person, even a minor, can have only one legal residence.

[Anonymous]

So the child of someone in OP’s position, whose family can afford a house in Shaw and a condo west of the park, will take a spot that might otherwise have gone to a child whose family cannot afford the house and the condo (or neither) and might have been able to lottery into the school. Except OP’s child has that spot so it is not available. Where is the outrage for that child? OP is cheating that child.