I am in the process of moving out of Massachusetts. According to my reading of the Massachusetts's DOR's "guidance," I have to "prove" I am not domiciled in Massachusetts if I want to not be taxed by Massachusetts. The problem is that the rules for what constitutes a "resident" is ambiguous, and believe it or not, the law appears to have "examples" in it, as though a judge would just read these examples and then make more or less arbitrary decisions about whether a person is a resident or not. For example, I am moving to a house in a different state, but temporarily I will still own my current house in Massachusetts until I sell it, which might take up to a year to do. Will some judge say I owe Massachusetts taxes because of this? The law is ambiguous.
Obviously, this appears very un-legal to me, and I am wondering how to deal with it. I have three fundamental questions:
Is the burden of proof really on me? I thought the prosecution had the burden of proof.
Do I need to "claim" in written form that I am not resident any longer, or can I just leave and stop sending in tax forms.
Since the law is ambiguous, how can I possibly "prove" I am no longer a resident, or gain acknowledgement of that proof.
Note that I will have no Massachusetts sourced income or bank accounts in Massachusetts after I leave. I will just have my old house temporarily and some post office boxes.