“Spousal-Imputed Domicile” Survives Constitutional Review: Commentary on Tischmak v. Utah State Tax Commission, 2025 UT 24

1. Introduction

Utah’s Supreme Court, in Tischmak v. Utah State Tax Commission, 2025 UT 24, addressed whether the State may constitutionally deem a non-resident spouse “domiciled” in Utah—and therefore liable for Utah income tax—merely because the other spouse is paying in-state tuition at a Utah public college.

The petitioner, Terry Tischmak, physically lived and worked in Wyoming during the 2013-2014 tax years. His estranged but still-married wife, however, lived in Utah and enjoyed resident tuition at Salt Lake Community College (SLCC). Relying on Utah Code § 59-10-136(1)(a)(ii)—the “Resident-Student Provision” of Utah’s Domicile Statute—the Utah State Tax Commission assessed Utah income tax against Mr. Tischmak. He challenged that assessment on five constitutional grounds: federal right to travel, federal and state due-process clauses, Utah’s uniform-operation clause, and the dormant Commerce Clause.

Justice Petersen, writing for a unanimous court, rejected every challenge. The opinion cements a new practical rule:

Where spouses file jointly, Utah may impute domicile—and therefore full income-tax liability—to an out-of-state spouse if the other spouse is a “resident student” under the Domicile Statute, without violating federal or state constitutional protections.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed the Tax Commission’s order, concluding:

• Statutory Application. Under the plain, unrebuttable language of § 59-10-136(1)(a)(ii), Mr. Tischmak was a Utah “resident individual” during 2013-2014 because his spouse was a “resident student.”
• Constitutional Challenges. All five challenges failed. The right-to-travel claim lacked any showing that the statute impeded interstate movement or discriminated against newcomers. The Utah due process and uniform-operation claims invoked only rational-basis review, which the statute easily satisfied. Federal due process was not offended because joint filers share a minimum connection to Utah. Lastly, dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence was not implicated.
• Practical Escape Valve. Critically, the Court highlighted that taxpayers may avoid spousal imputation by filing married-filing-separately; Utah law then treats them as having “no spouse” for domicile purposes. The availability of this choice undercut nearly every constitutional objection.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Buck v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 2022 UT 11
  Confirmed the Domicile Statute’s “three-tier” framework and declared Tier 1 (including the Resident-Student rule) irrefutable.
• Nebeker v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 2001 UT 74
  Reiterated that the Commission lacks authority to decide constitutional questions, preserving such questions for judicial review.
• Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999); Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986)
  Groundwork for the modern “three-part” right-to-travel doctrine. The Court showed how none of the Saenz components were triggered by Utah’s statute.
• United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)
  Established the demanding standard for facial challenges (“no set of circumstances”).
• DIRECTV v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 2015 UT 93; Steiner, 2019 UT 47
  Explain Utah’s approach to rational basis and dormant-Commerce analysis. The Court relied on these to reject strict scrutiny and to “stay its hand” regarding novel Commerce Clause expansions.
• North Carolina Dep’t of Revenue v. Kaestner Trust, 588 U.S. 262 (2019)
  Cited to show the minimum-contacts due-process test in state taxation.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Statutory Construction
The Resident-Student Provision deems an individual (or the individual’s spouse) domiciled in Utah when either is a “resident student” at a Utah institution. Tier 1 status is “clear, unambiguous, and unrebuttable.” Therefore, once Mr. Tischmak filed federal taxes jointly with his wife—who indisputably qualified for resident tuition—his domicile and consequent tax liability were automatic under state law.

B. Facial vs. As-Applied Challenges
All constitutional attacks were facial. Hence, Mr. Tischmak had to show that no conceivable factual scenario would satisfy the Constitution—an extraordinarily heavy burden.

C. Right to Travel
The Court dissected the Saenz trilogy, concluding that Utah’s law neither deters interstate movement, discriminates against new arrivals, nor burdens transient visitors. The statute applies identically to in-state and out-of-state spouses who jointly file taxes; thus, no right-to-travel component is implicated.

D. Utah Due Process & Uniform-Operation
Because no fundamental right was burdened, only rational-basis review applied. The legislation’s objectives—capturing tax revenue from individuals who benefit (directly or derivatively) from state-subsidised tuition and preventing gamesmanship—were patently legitimate. The spousal-imputation mechanism was reasonably related to those goals.

E. Federal Due Process—“Minimum Contacts”
A joint filer who claims federal benefits with a Utah-domiciled spouse has a “minimum connection” justifying state taxation. The Court analogised to personal jurisdiction doctrine via International Shoe and Kaestner Trust.

F. Dormant Commerce Clause
Because the assessment did not impose differential burdens on interstate vs. intrastate commerce, or subject income to multiple taxation (Mr. Tischmak could claim a Wyoming credit), dormant-Commerce constraints were not triggered.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

• Tax-Planning Implications. Out-of-state spouses of Utah resident students must weigh the tax cost of filing jointly. Accountants and tax preparers should flag this ruling any time one spouse attends a Utah public college.
• Higher Education Policy. The decision protects Utah’s fiscal objective of recouping revenue from families enjoying subsidised tuition, insulating the Resident-Student rule from further facial attack.
• Litigation Strategy. Constitutional challenges to Utah taxing statutes will face steep odds unless challengers craft a well-supported as-applied theory or quantify discriminatory economic effects.
• Model for Other States. States that provide resident tuition yet confront “border-state domicile shopping” may view Tischmak as a blueprint for similar spousal-imputation provisions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge

Facial: Plaintiff asserts a statute is invalid in all conceivable applications.
As-Applied: Plaintiff concedes general validity but claims unconstitutional effect in the specific situation at hand. Facial challenges are harder to win because any hypothetical valid application defeats them.

“Domicile”

The place a person treats as permanent home. Utah’s tax code augments common-law domicile with statutory deeming rules—here, the presence of a spouse attending a public college at in-state rates.

Right to Travel (Three-Part Test)

1. Freedom to move across state lines.
2. Freedom to be treated as a “welcome visitor” in other states.
3. Freedom of new residents to receive equal state treatment.

Utah’s law does not infringe any component because it neither restricts movement, disadvantages temporary visitors, nor discriminates against new Utah residents.

Rational-Basis Review

Under this deferential test, a law survives if the court can conceive of any legitimate governmental purpose that is reasonably advanced by the legislative means chosen. Courts do not weigh whether the law is wise or optimal—only whether it is irrational.

Dormant Commerce Clause

A judge-made doctrine preventing states from enacting laws that unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce when Congress has not acted. It most commonly forbids: (1) explicit protectionist measures, or (2) multiple taxation of the same value in a way intrastate commerce need not bear.

5. Conclusion

Tischmak v. Utah State Tax Commission fortifies Utah’s ability to tax households benefitting—directly or indirectly—from subsidised higher education. By endorsing “spousal-imputed domicile” against a battery of constitutional claims, the Court harmonised tax policy with constitutional doctrine and provided taxpayers a clear escape hatch: file separately if you wish to prevent Utah from piggy-backing on your spouse’s resident-student status.

Going forward, litigants challenging Utah’s Domicile Statute—or analogous laws elsewhere—must either attack discrete applications or marshal evidence of genuine interstate discrimination. As it stands, Tischmak is a robust precedent confirming that joint filers share tax consequences, even across state lines, when one spouse accepts the financial benefits of Utah residency.