HAR §18-235-1.05. Domicile by choice

(a) “Domicile by choice” is a domicile chosen by an individual to replace the individual’s former domicile. An individual can acquire a domicile by choice when: (1) The individual is no longer eligible to be claimed as a dependent on another person’s federal or Hawaii income tax return; and (2) The individual has reached the legal age of majority in Hawaii. HRS §235-1 HRS §235-1 HRS §235-1 HRS §235-1 HRS §235-1 HRS §235-1 §18-235-1.06 INCOME TAX LAW 235- 8 (Unofficial Compilation as of 12/31/2025) The individual may then voluntarily establish the place of the individual’s domicile wherever he or she may be. In doing so, however, the individual must meet all the requirements of law for the purpose of establishing a new domicile. Example 1: B was born in Honolulu to domiciliary residents of Hawaii, attended grade school and high school in Hawaii, then lived on the mainland while attending college for four years. During college, B voted in Hawaii by absentee ballot, maintained a savings account in Hawaii, and maintained his membership in the Honolulu Jaycees. Upon B’s graduation from college, B decided to make his home in California and B did, in fact, establish a permanent domicile there. B bought a home, voted in California elections, became active in community affairs, and joined various school and business clubs. After working for several years in California, B departed for a Trust Territory on a 2-year contract where B is presently working for a mainland contractor. Conclusion: B is deemed to be a domiciliary resident of Hawaii at birth. During the four- year period that B lived on the mainland while attending college, B remained a resident of Hawaii. A Hawaii domiciliary resident who attends school outside of Hawaii remains a Hawaii domiciliary resident unless the individual establishes a domicile outside of Hawaii. B abandoned B’s domicile in Hawaii when a permanent domicile was established in California. B is now deemed to be a nonresident of Hawaii. Example 2: C, a resident of Hawaii, attended college on the mainland. While on the mainland, C traveled to a foreign country to perform missionary work. Upon returning to the mainland, C completed college. C then returned to Hawaii and got married. C secured employment with an agency of the United States government and moved to Japan to work. In C’s applications for employment, transportation agreement, passport, and other formal documents and papers pertaining to employment in Japan, C stated that C’s legal residence was in Honolulu, Hawaii. C continued to make deposits to C’s bank in Hawaii. C also opened a bank account in Japan and made some investments through Japanese companies. It was not C’s intention to make Japan C’s fixed and permanent home. Accordingly, C made no effort to establish a new domicile in Japan nor to abandon the old domicile in Hawaii. Conclusion: C is deemed to be a resident of Hawaii while attending college on the mainland, while performing missionary work in a foreign country, and while working in Japan. A Hawaii domiciliary resident who attends school outside of Hawaii remains a Hawaii domiciliary resident unless the individual establishes domicile outside of Hawaii. It is apparent that C did not establish the foreign country or Japan as a permanent home. C was in the foreign country only for the purpose of performing missionary work and is in Japan only for the purpose of employment and has not acquired a new domicile. Nor has C abandoned the domicile in Hawaii. Under the facts presented, the same answer would apply if C was working in Korea, Germany, on the mainland United States, or elsewhere. Example 3: D, a resident of Hawaii, contracts to work for a company in Japan. The contract is a renewable three-year contract. D is married and D’s spouse and children accompany D to Japan. D rents a home and opens bank accounts in Japan. D’s children attend local schools in Japan. D does not own any property in Hawaii and has not voted in Hawaii since moving to Japan. At the end of the three-year contract, D renews D’s contract with the company in Japan for another three years. At the renewal period, D’s applications for employment, transportation agreement, passport, and other formal documents and papers pertaining to employment in Japan stated that D’s legal residence was in Honolulu, Hawaii. It was not D’s intention to make Japan D’s permanent and indefinite home. Accordingly, D made no effort to establish a new domicile in Japan nor to abandon the old domicile in Hawaii. Conclusion: D is deemed to be a resident of Hawaii during the period that D worked in Japan. It is apparent that D did not establish Japan as a permanent home. D is there only for the purpose of employment and has not acquired a new domicile. Nor has D abandoned the domicile in Hawaii. Under the facts presented, the same answer would apply if D was working in Korea, Germany, on the mainland United States, or elsewhere. [Eff 2/16/82; am 9/3/94; am and ren §18- 235-1.05 8/28/98] (Auth: HRS §§ 231-3(9), 235-118) (Imp: HRS §235-1)