(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I do so because, on the record presented, the Sanchezes transferred their domicile from Minnesota to South Dakota no later than June 18, 2004. A person changes their domicile in Minnesota when they move to another jurisdiction with the intention of remaining there permanently or for an indefinite period of time. Minn. R. 8001.0300, subp. 2 (2007). Here, it is not disputed that the Sanchezes left Minnesota with no intent to return. Nor is it disputed that the San-chezes traveled to South Dakota, obtained a South Dakota mailing address, applied for and received South Dakota drivers’ licenses, opened a checking account, obtained credit cards, registered their vehicles, registered to vote, and notified their insurance providers of their change of address. This evidence indicates that the Sanchezes moved to South Dakota with the intent to make it their permanent home, thus establishing a new domicile. The Sanchezes’ actions are not actions that a taxpayer would undertake merely to create an illusion of changing domicile.
This court has never before held that a taxpayer must shackle themselves to another state in any specific fashion or for any specific period of time in order to effect a change in domicile. But, after today’s decisión, taxpayers wishing to establish a change in domicile will have to buy or rent property in another state and remain physically present in that state for some undefined period of time. The logical absurdity of the court’s decision is that because the Sanchezes did not buy or rent property or spend sufficient time in South Dakota, they remain to this day subject, at the Commissioner of Revenue’s whim, to Minnesota’s income tax even though they have completely abandoned their Minnesota domicile. Therefore, I would reverse the tax court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.