Summary

Portrait of Howell Edmunds Jackson Howell Edmunds Jackson District of Columbia v. Murphy District of Columbia…

A decision that the statute lays a tax only on those with an affirmative intent to remain here the rest of their days would be at odds with the prevailing concept of domicile, and would give the statute scope far narrower than the Congress must have intended.
Cases falling clearly within such broad rules aside, the question of domicile is a difficult one of fact to be settled only by a realistic and conscientious review of the many relevant (and frequently conflicting) indicia of where a man's home [10] is and according to the established modes of proof.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Howell Edmunds Jackson Howell Edmunds Jackson District of Columbia v. Murphy District of Columbia…

We hold that a man does not acquire a domicile in the District simply by coming here to live for an indefinite period of time while in the Government service. A contrary decision would disregard the statements made on the floor of Congress as to the meaning of the statute, fail to give proper weight to the trend of judicial decisions, with which Congress should be taken to have been cognizant, and result in a wholesale finding of domicile on the part of Government servants quite obviously at variance with Congressional policy.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Howell Edmunds Jackson Howell Edmunds Jackson District of Columbia v. Murphy District of Columbia…

Because of its character as a federal city, there is no local political constituency with whose activities those living in it may identify themselves as a symbol of their acceptance of a local domicile.
Not all who flock here are birds of a feather. Some enter the Civil Service, finding tenure and pay there more secure than in private enterprise.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature