North Carolina Lawmakers Introduce Bill To Penalize Parents Of College Student Voters

[Oldgamer]

A Republican legislator in North Carolina is pushing a bill to penalize parents if they have a child in college who chooses to vote where they study.
State Rep. Bill Cook (R) introduced SB 667 this week, which would raise taxes on families with college students if the child registers to vote at school rather than at home.

Senate Bill 667, known as “Equalize Voter Rights,” would remove the tax exemption for dependents who register to vote at any address other than their parents’ home.

“If the voter is a dependent of the voter’s parent or legal guardian, is 18 years of age or older and the voter has registered at an address other than that of the parent or legal guardian, the parent or legal guardian will not be allowed to claim the voter as a dependent for state income tax purposes,” the bill says.

In the 1979 case Symm v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed a decision holding that a state cannot place unique burdens on college student voters that do not apply to others. While this bill attempts to sidestep Symm by not explicitly prohibiting college students from registering, the financial penalty their parents would face still amounts to an attempt to punish these voters for voting at their school address rather than their home, and should not be upheld if it is passed.

Cook is not the only Republican lawmaker trying to disenfranchise college students. During the last election cycle, the Republican House Speaker in New Hampshire discouraged students from voting because they’ll just vote “liberal,” and in Maine the Republican Secretary of State sent threatening letters to student voters encouraging them to re-register in another state. This year, a GOP legislator in Indiana introduced a bill in February to bar students who pay out-of-state tuition from voting in the Hoosier State.

Far-right legislation is becoming a mainstay in North Carolina. Republicans, who currently control both legislative chambers and the governor’s office, are currently considering enacting voter ID in the Tar Heel State. In addition, eleven lawmakers recently sponsored a resolution to ignore the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion.

Link to article

 

[waggy]

how idiotic..

 

[ivwshane]

Righties, defend this.

 

[nehalem256]

Righties, defend this.

If a person establishes a permanent residence different than you it would seem to be pretty hard to claim they are your dependent.

 

[Thebobo]

Gawd how low can these folks go with this shit.

just amazing.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
“If the voter is a dependent of the voter’s parent or legal guardian, is 18 years of age or older and the voter has registered at an address other than that of the parent or legal guardian, the parent or legal guardian will not be allowed to claim the voter as a dependent for state income tax purposes,” the bill says.

I don't know what the purpose of the law really is, but to claim a child as a dependent for income tax purposes they must live with you in your house.

If the kid is registering to vote somewhere else they are claiming a residence elsewhere. I.e., under current rules they technically can't be claimed as a dependent under current law.

So, IMO, as a legal matter nothing has changed.

If a person establishes a permanent residence different than you it would seem to be pretty hard to claim they are your dependent.

Exactly, you beat me to it.

Fern

 

[waggy]

I don't know what the purpose of the law really is, but to claim a child as a dependent for income tax purposes they must live with you in your house.


Fern

err wrong.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't know what the purpose of the law really is, but to claim a child as a dependent for income tax purposes they must live with you in your house.

If the kid is registering to vote somewhere else they are claiming a residence elsewhere. I.e., under current rules they technically can't be claimed as a dependent under current law.

So, IMO, as a legal matter nothing has changed.

When I was in college, I was required by the institution to live for two years in the on-campus dormitories, despite being a local resident. My mailing address was my college mailstop for most things, but I still lived at home for legal purposes (seeing as how I couldn't stay in the dorms over spring, summer or winter breaks). I can see someone registering to vote with the address they get mail at, but still maintaining residence for legal purposes in their parents' house.

This law is ridiculous and won't make it anywhere.

 

[waggy]

When I was in college, I was required by the institution to live for two years in the on-campus dormitories, despite being a local resident. My mailing address was my college mailstop for most things, but I still lived at home for legal purposes (seeing as how I couldn't stay in the dorms over spring, summer or winter breaks). I can see someone registering to vote with the address they get mail at, but still maintaining residence for legal purposes in their parents' house.

This law is ridiculous and won't make it anywhere.

same.

I had to live in the dorms. i had most my mail to the dorm. but my permanent residence was my parents home.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern
I don't know what the purpose of the law really is, but to claim a child as a dependent for income tax purposes they must live with you in your house.

err wrong.

See here:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch03.html#en_US_2012_publink1000170857

Fern

 

[Fern]

When I was in college, I was required by the institution to live for two years in the on-campus dormitories, despite being a local resident. My mailing address was my college mailstop for most things, but I still lived at home for legal purposes (seeing as how I couldn't stay in the dorms over spring, summer or winter breaks). I can see someone registering to vote with the address they get mail at, but still maintaining residence for legal purposes in their parents' house.

This law is ridiculous and won't make it anywhere.

You can't register to vote somewhere unless you're claiming to be a legal resident there.

If they claim to be a legal resident at that other location, they cannot also claim a legal residence at their parents' house.

Edit: It doesn't look like it would matter in your case, assuming you're in the same county.

Fern

 

[waggy]

See here:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch03.html#en_US_2012_publink1000170857

Fern

and did you read that?

Temporary absences. Your child is considered to have lived with you during periods of time when one of you, or both, are temporarily absent due to special circumstances such as:
Illness,

Education,

Business,

Vacation, or

Military service.

 

[SheHateMe]

I also lived in the dorms and voted back in 2008 in my College town.

 

[Fern]

and did you read that?

Temporary absences. Your child is considered to have lived with you during periods of time when one of you, or both, are temporarily absent due to special circumstances such as:
-snip-

Yeah I read that.

Declaring a legal residence elsewhere is not a temporary absence.

Fern

 

[waggy]

Yeah I read that.

Declaring a legal residence elsewhere is not a temporary absence.

Fern

yeah? thats not what i was mentioning.

I don't know what the purpose of the law really is, but to claim a child as a dependent for income tax purposes they must live with you in your house.


Fern

this was. you are wrong on this just like i said. you do not need to have the child living with you to claim him as a dependent.

if they are under 25, at college, you provide %50 of living expenses you can claim them.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Yeah I read that.

Declaring a legal residence elsewhere is not a temporary absence.

Fern

So ignoring the other argument, say a child lives at home in an election year until the fall when they go off to school for their first year. They also register to vote there.

Should the parent lose the ability to claim as all tests in the link you referenced would otherwise be met minus this new rule that they can't vote elsewhere?

 

[Fern]

yeah? thats not what i was mentioning.




this was. you are wrong on this just like i said. you do not need to have the child living with you to claim him as a dependent.

if they are under 25, at college, you provide %50 of living expenses you can claim them.

Here's the law (section 152):

(c) Qualifying child

For purposes of this section—
(1) In general

The term “qualifying child” means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, an individual—

(A) who bears a relationship to the taxpayer described in paragraph (2),

(B) who has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of such taxable year,

(C) who meets the age requirements of paragraph (3),

(D) who has not provided over one-half of such individual’s own support for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins, and

(E) who has not filed a joint return (other than only for a claim of refund) with the individual’s spouse under section 6013 for the taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins

Here's a link to the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/152

The IRS has written regulations laying out some (non-statutory) common sense rules like vacations don't count, nor time spent away at school.

But you'll find, e.g., in cases of dual custody the IRS can and will get down to counting days the kids spent at either house if the two parents dispute who gets the dependency exemption. The rule is the kid has to live there more than half the year.

But yeah, you got me. I didn't list out the (non-applicable) exceptions.

My point was that this new/proposed law doesn't change anything in regard to tax law. Under current law if the kids signs an oath, i.e., registers to vote, claiming a residence elsewhere he isn't legally a dependent child for tax purposes.

Fern

 

[Greenman]

This will mean a tax increase, I thought P&N liked tax increases?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Here's the law (section 152):



Here's a link to the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/152

The IRS has written regulations laying out some (non-statutory) common sense rules like vacations don't count, nor time spent away at school.

But you'll find, e.g., in cases of dual custody the IRS can and will get down to counting days the kids spent at either house if the two parents dispute who gets the dependency exemption. The rule is the kid has to live there more than half the year.

But yeah, you got me. I didn't list out the (non-applicable) exceptions.

My point was that this new/proposed law doesn't change anything in regard to tax law. Under current law if the kids signs an oath, i.e., registers to vote, claiming a residence elsewhere he isn't legally a dependent child for tax purposes.

Fern

I refer you to my question above. To me that changes tax law.

 

[Smoblikat]

If a person establishes a permanent residence different than you it would seem to be pretty hard to claim they are your dependent.

Interesting, I agree. But I think taxes are too high anyway, so I say fuck the government and let the parents claim the kids anyway.

 

[sactoking]

It's quite possible to be a nonresident and be a dependent. For example, you can establish California residency by opening a California bank account for one year and one day.

The IRS test for dependency is "principal place of abode" and time spend away at school doesn't count. If my parents are residents of Kentucky and I am away at Stanford, I can be a resident of California by establishing a bank account, be in the state for nine months, move back home for three summer months, and have my principal place of abode be 100% in Kentucky, since all of my time in California is exempt.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's quite possible to be a nonresident and be a dependent. For example, you can establish California residency by opening a California bank account for one year and one day.

The IRS test for dependency is "principal place of abode" and time spend away at school doesn't count. If my parents are residents of Kentucky and I am away at Stanford, I can be a resident of California by establishing a bank account, be in the state for nine months, move back home for three summer months, and have my principal place of abode be 100% in Kentucky, since all of my time in California is exempt.

The problem is that when you register to vote, you are now stating that is now your residence.
You can only have one permanent residence for tax purposes. Is it with the parents or at the school. It can not be both. Tax rules follow the permanent residence

 

[sactoking]

One of the problems I see is fungible language that is not clear on its face. For example using California again (since it is so populous) in order to register to vote you need to declare yourself a resident. I haven't seen the Secretary of State define resident, but the CA Franchise Tax Board does. The FTB gives many ways to qualify as a resident, most of them involving intent. However, one of the definitions is that anyone who resides in the state for 9 months of the year is a de facto resident. That means that many people are residents without intent. Therefore, attesting to being a resident when registering to vote is not a declaration of intent in that circumstance, it is a confirmation of legal rulemaking.

 

[Oldgamer]

I have a kiddo in military service right now who was in college prior to, and he used our home as his main place of residence both for college even though he lived at the college and for military service currently. He was exempt for both and could register to vote at the college and vote by absentee in the military using our address as his main place of residence legally.
I will never understand how any of you can try to justify what they are doing in some of these states with regard to implementing laws to discourage people from voting.

Unless of course the justification is really a silent "yes, I want republicans to do this so we can win the next election through these measures", instead of winning an election fair and square and on real merits.

 

[Murloc]

I don't know the US laws but if someone is studying and their expenses are paid by the parents, then I consider that as being dependent, regardless of where the legal residency is.
As for voting, one should vote where his legal residence is.