Tax Law Update: October 2026
• Connecticut Supreme Court reviews and confirms evidentiary standard of proof for domicile cases—In Daniels v. Commissioner, 357 A.3d 672 (Conn. 2026), a decedent’s estate appealed a Connecticut trial court holding that the decedent was a Connecticut domiciliary. The decedent had homes in three states and split his time among them but had declared Florida as his domicile. It was a close call, with the decedent spending nearly equal time in Florida and Connecticut, and, of course, it was a fact-driven assessment.
At oral argument, the Connecticut Supreme Court questioned the applicable standard of proof, and it was apparent to all that no established answer existed in Connecticut. The state had assumed that the taxpayer needed to prevail by “clear and convincing evidence.” However, after briefing, the court held that, in the absence of a clear statutory direction, the taxpayer needed only to demonstrate their position by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The court explained that the higher burden of proof applies to specific circumstances (sales and use tax), but when the Connecticut statute is silent on the burden of proof, as it is for domicile issues, the preponderance of evidence standard applies.
• Montana Supreme Court finds uncashed check includible in decedent’s estate—In In re Estate of Bradley James Haler (DA 25-0818, Montana Supreme Court May 26, 2026), Bradley Haler died intestate in December 2021 as a Montana resident, survived by his wife and a son from a prior marriage. A few months before his death, he went to the bank and obtained a cashier’s check for $80,000, payable to himself. He died a month later, and his wife, Rebecca, found the check in their home. She cashed the check after being advised that it wasn’t an estate asset because Bradley had written it prior to his death. However, Bradley’s son argued that since it hadn’t been cashed, it remained an asset of the estate.
The trial court held that the check was a gift to his wife, constructively delivered to her by his leaving it in the home. The Supreme Court disagreed (unsurprisingly), finding that Bradley never made any communication regarding a gift and didn’t endorse it or give it to Rebecca directly. Leaving the check in their home wasn’t clearly indicative of a gift. As a result, the check remained an asset of the estate.
