For wealthy Americans who own homes in several states, the question of where they actually live can become much more than a matter of personal preference. It can determine where millions of dollars in taxes are owed.
That question is now at the center of a long-running legal dispute involving the estate of businessman Jack Anderson, whose family maintained luxury residences in Connecticut, Florida and Arizona. After Anderson died in 2015 at the age of 90, Connecticut officials determined that his estate owed approximately $13.2 million in estate taxes, arguing that Anderson was domiciled in Connecticut when he died.
The estate strongly disagreed. Its executor, Les Daniels, argued that Anderson’s true permanent home was a 9,700-square-foot oceanfront property in Vero Beach, Florida, a state that does not impose an estate tax. The dispute has turned into a decade-long battle over what makes a luxury residence a person’s legal home.
Anderson’s Florida property was far more than a vacation house, according to evidence presented by the estate. The oceanfront residence was built in the early 1990s and included a private boardwalk to the Atlantic Ocean, elaborate interior features and a custom observatory reflecting Anderson’s interest in astronomy. His family celebrated Christmas there, and his will listed the Florida property as his address.
The estate also pointed to a series of formal connections with Florida. Anderson had a Florida driver’s license, was registered to vote there and maintained a Florida bank account. He had also filed a Florida domicile declaration in 2006.
Connecticut, however, had its own substantial claim. Anderson owned three condominiums in Greenwich, including a roughly 4,000-square-foot unit that he and his wife had purchased in 1984. Additional units were later acquired for guests, assistants and health aides, bringing the combined Connecticut property to about 9,000 square feet.
The most important evidence for Connecticut officials was not necessarily the size of the homes or the documents identifying Anderson as a Florida resident, but how much time he actually spent in each state.
According to court findings, from 2006 until his death, Anderson typically spent about five and a half months each year in Connecticut, approximately three and a half months in Florida and about three months at his Arizona residence. He maintained furnishings, possessions and fully equipped homes at all three properties.
A Connecticut trial court previously concluded that the amount of time Anderson spent in the state was the strongest evidence that Connecticut remained his domicile. The court also found that his personal, social and property connections to Connecticut and Florida were substantial and roughly equal.
The legal battle reached the Connecticut Supreme Court, which issued a major ruling in June 2026. The court determined that Anderson’s estate only needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not domiciled in Connecticut, rather than meeting the more demanding clear-and-convincing-evidence standard used by the lower court. The Supreme Court sent the case back for further proceedings.
The ruling could have consequences beyond Anderson’s estate. As wealthy Americans increasingly maintain homes in multiple states, determining legal domicile has become a growing issue for state tax authorities. States with estate, inheritance or high-income taxes have strong financial incentives to establish that wealthy individuals were residents when they died.
The Anderson case illustrates why simply having a Florida driver’s license or declaring Florida as a permanent residence may not be enough. Tax authorities can examine a wide range of evidence, including where a person spends time, where family members live, property ownership, vehicle registrations, social memberships, financial relationships and other personal connections.
Connecticut’s estate tax rules have also changed since Anderson’s death. At the time, the state’s estate tax applied to estates exceeding $2 million. For 2026, Connecticut’s exemption is aligned with the federal exemption, which is $15 million.
For the luxury real-estate market, the case highlights a critical reality: owning an expensive home in a tax-friendly state does not automatically make that state a person’s legal domicile.
The dispute also demonstrates how the definition of “home” becomes complicated when an individual owns multiple multimillion-dollar properties. For Anderson, Florida may have been the place he considered home, but Connecticut had evidence showing that he spent more of his year there.
The next stage of the case will determine whether the Anderson estate can now meet the lower legal standard established by the Connecticut Supreme Court. If it succeeds, the $13.2 million tax assessment could ultimately disappear.
For wealthy homeowners with properties across state lines, the case is being closely watched. Its outcome could reinforce an increasingly important lesson in luxury real estate and estate planning: when governments are deciding where someone truly lived, a deed, driver’s license or declaration of residence may be only one piece of a much larger puzzle.
+ There are no comments
Add yours