Domicile of choice and estate duty: long residence and settled intention in India excluded foreign movable assets from tax.

A domicile of origin is displaced only by clear evidence of residence in another country with an intention to make that country a permanent home. Long, continuous residence in India, family and professional ties there, retirement and settlement in India, continued supervision of a founded institution, execution of a will in India, and the absence of a settled intention to return to the United States supported a finding of Indian domicile of choice. The burden lay on the party asserting displacement of the domicile of origin, and the surrounding facts were sufficient to discharge that burden. On that basis, foreign movable assets situated outside India were excluded from estate duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deceased retained the domicile of origin or had acquired an Indian domicile of choice, so as to render her foreign movable assets liable to estate duty; (ii) whether the department discharged the onus of proving abandonment of the domicile of origin and acquisition of Indian domicile.

Issue (i): Whether the deceased retained the domicile of origin or had acquired an Indian domicile of choice, so as to render her foreign movable assets liable to estate duty.

Analysis: Domicile of origin continues until displaced by satisfactory evidence of the acquisition and continuance of a domicile of choice. Residence in a country is strong evidence of domicile, and long, continuous residence accompanied by conduct and circumstances showing an intention to make that country a permanent home can rebut the presumption in favour of the domicile of origin. The deceased spent almost her entire life in India, her family and work were rooted in India, she retired and settled at Kodaikanal, continued to supervise the institution she had founded, executed her will in India, and there was no material to show any settled intention to return permanently to the United States. The reference to probate in New York in the will did not affirm a foreign domicile and was of neutral effect.

Conclusion: The deceased acquired an Indian domicile of choice and did not retain the foreign domicile of origin. The foreign movable assets were not liable to estate duty as foreign property situated outside India.

Issue (ii): Whether the department discharged the onus of proving abandonment of the domicile of origin and acquisition of Indian domicile.

Analysis: The burden lay on the party asserting that the domicile of origin had been displaced. On the facts proved from the deceased's lifelong residence, activities, retirement in India, and absence of any reliable indication of an intention to return and settle in the United States, the material before the Tribunal and the Court was sufficient to establish that India had become her permanent home. The Tribunal's reliance on the presumption favouring the domicile of origin and on the wording of the will was unsustainable in the face of the totality of circumstances.

Conclusion: The department discharged the onus of proof.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the accountable person, and the estate duty assessment could not include the foreign movable assets excluded by the applicable domiciliary rule.

Ratio Decidendi: A domicile of origin is displaced only by clear evidence of residence in another country with an intention to reside there indefinitely, and long, continuous residence with conduct showing a settled permanent home is sufficient to establish a domicile of choice on a balance of probabilities.

---