The 183 day rule in NYS taxation bobs to the surface from time to time.  In this accounting malpractice case, where plaintiff resided makes a difference of about $1 million in tax.  Client relied upon the CPAs explanation of how the 183 day rule is applied, to his detriment.  Was that advice the [or a] proximate cause of this problem?

Hamadeh v Spaulding   2015 NY Slip Op 30027(U)   January 8, 2015   Supreme County, New York County  Docket Number: 114060/09   Judge: Marcy S. Friedman  applies the legal malpractice rule on proximate cause to accounting malpractice. 

"In arguing that plaintiffs cannot establish that they committed malpractice, both Spaulding and Citrin contend that plaintiffs must prove not only that plaintiffs could have avoided taxation as statutory residents if Spaulding had provided different advice about the number of days they could spend in New York, but also that they could have avoided taxation as non-domiciliaries. They further contend that plaintiffs cannot establish that they changed their domicile from New York to Pennsylvania, as evidenced by the finding in the Report of Audit to that effect, as well as by defendants’ analysis of plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the elements necessary to establish a change of domicile. (See Spaulding Memo. In Opp. to Ps.’ Motion at 12-14; Citrin Memo. In Support of Citrin Motion at 13-17.) Put another way, defendants argue that because plaintiffs cannot show that they changed their domicile, they would have been subject to taxation as New York residents, regardless of whether the NYSDTF concluded that they were statutory residents. Spaulding concludes that plaintiffs cannot establish that his advice was the "proximate cause" of their increased tax liability. (Spaulding Memo. In Opp. to Ps.’ Motion at 14.) Citrin posits that plaintiffs’ failure to change their domicile from New York was an "independent cause" of their tax liability. (Citrin Memo. In Reply to Citrin Motion at 6.) Defendants both argue in effect that Spaulding’s incorrect advice on the statutory residency must  have been the sole proximate cause of the NYSDTF’s assessment of deficiency and interest charges upon plaintiffs. Defendants do not cite any case law in the accountant malpractice context which holds that the malpractice must have been the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury. As discussed above, cases in the accountant malpractice area have used the term "a proximate cause" in articulating the standard that the plaintiff must prove. In the legal malpractice context, an often-cited formulation of the standard of proof requires that three elements be established: "(I) the negligence of the attorney; (2) that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss sustained; and (3) proof of actual damages. It requires the plaintiff to establish that counsel failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that ‘but for’ the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the matter or would have avoided damages." (Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, I 0 [I st Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted, citing AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434 (2007].) In other legal malpractice cases, however, the courts have held that the attorney’s malpractice must have been "a" proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury. (See 180 E. 88th St. Apt. Corp. v Law Off. of Robert Jay Gumenick, P.C., 2010 NY Slip Op 33848 [U], 2010 NY Misc Lexis 6878 [Sup Ct, NY County] [discussing varying formulations of attorney malpractice standard], affd 84 AD3d 582 (1st Dept 2011].) The Second Department has expressly held that these varying
formulations of the proximate cause standard ("a" as opposed to "the" proximate cause) have "no
substantive import," and that the "but for" standard for attorney malpractice cases does not require proof that the defendant attorney’s negligence was the "sole proximate cause" of the plaintiffs losses. (Barnett v Schwartz, 4 7 AD3d 197, 203-205 (2d Dept 20071.) Although the First Department has not expressly so held, it recently approvingly cited the Second  Department’s holding. (See Borges v Placeres, 2014 NY Slip Op 08910, 2014 NY App Div Lexis 8822 [Dec. 23, 2014] [citing Barnett in holding that the trial court’s jury charge appropriately provided that defendant attorney’s malpractice must be a "substantial factor in causing plaintiffs harm"].) 1 The court assumes that the "but for" standard from the legal malpractice context applies equally to accountant malpractice claims. For purposes of this motion, however, the court need not reconcile the differing interpretations of this standard because, even in its most rigorous application, the standard is clearly satisfied by the evidence in the record. "