The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court ruling that determined Robert and Mary Morris were New Hampshire residents subject to the state's interest and dividends tax for six months in 2017. The decision, issued Aug. 19, 2025, in *Morris v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration*, upholds the state Department of Revenue Administration's determination of the couple's tax liability.
The case centers on the complex issue of state residency for tax purposes, particularly for individuals who maintain homes in multiple states. The Morrises, a married couple with three adult children, purchased a home in Connecticut in 1996 near Mr. Morris' office in Stamford. In 2003, they acquired a second home in New London, New Hampshire, to enjoy skiing and other recreational activities.
The Superior Court, presided over by Judge Ignatius, initially denied the Morrises' motion for summary judgment. Following a bench trial, the court upheld the DRA's determination that the couple were New Hampshire residents for tax purposes during the relevant six-month period in 2017. The Morrises subsequently appealed the decision to the state's highest court.
Justice Countway authored the Supreme Court opinion, which provides important clarification on how New Hampshire determines residency for tax purposes. The case involved the application of RSA 77:3, I(a), the state's interest and dividends tax statute that was in effect in 2017 but has since been repealed. The law was eliminated by Laws 2021, 91:101, as amended by Laws 2023, 79:88, effective Jan. 1, 2025.
New Hampshire's interest and dividends tax historically applied to residents of the state, making residency determination crucial for tax liability. The tax was imposed on interest and dividend income received by New Hampshire residents, regardless of where the income was generated. The statute required careful analysis of factors such as where individuals spent their time, maintained their primary residence, and conducted their daily affairs.
The Morrises were represented by Pierce Atwood LLP of Portland, Maine, with attorneys Jonathan A. Block and Olga J. Goldberg handling their case. They argued against the DRA's residency determination, seeking to establish that they were not New Hampshire residents during the disputed period and therefore not subject to the state's tax on their investment income.
The state was represented by Attorney General John M. Formella and Solicitor General Anthony J. Galdieri, with Senior Assistant Attorney General Mary A. Triick handling the brief. The state's position supported the DRA's original determination that the couple qualified as New Hampshire residents under the applicable tax statutes.
The case was submitted to the Supreme Court on March 6, 2025, and the opinion was issued more than five months later on Aug. 19, 2025. The court's decision to affirm the lower court ruling means the Morrises remain liable for the disputed tax assessment for the six-month period in 2017.
This case highlights the ongoing complexity individuals face when maintaining residences in multiple states, particularly regarding tax obligations. As people increasingly divide their time between different locations for work, retirement, or recreational purposes, questions of legal residency for tax purposes become more frequent and more complex.
The decision also comes as New Hampshire has eliminated its interest and dividends tax entirely. The tax, which was unique among New Hampshire's limited tax structure, generated revenue for the state but was often criticized as difficult to administer and enforce. The state's decision to repeal the tax eliminates similar disputes going forward, though cases involving tax years before 2025 may still arise.
For taxpayers who maintain homes in multiple states, the *Morris* decision reinforces the importance of carefully documenting residency intentions and activities. Factors such as time spent in each location, voter registration, vehicle registration, and where individuals conduct their primary business affairs all play roles in residency determinations.
The case also demonstrates the state's continued efforts to collect taxes owed under previous statutes, even as the underlying tax has been eliminated. The DRA's success in this case may encourage the agency to pursue similar residency challenges for other tax years before the interest and dividends tax was repealed.
Legal experts note that residency disputes often turn on detailed factual analyses of individuals' activities and intentions. The trial court's findings of fact, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, likely involved extensive review of evidence regarding where the Morrises spent their time and maintained their primary connections during 2017.
The decision provides guidance for future residency determinations, even though the specific tax at issue no longer exists. Other New Hampshire taxes and fees may still require residency determinations, making the legal principles established in *Morris* relevant for ongoing tax administration.
The case was designated as 2025 N.H. 37 and originated in Merrimack County as Case No. 2024-0234, reflecting its path through the state court system from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court on appeal.