                        T.C. Memo. 1998-22



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT


    ESTATE OF BARKAT A. KHAN, DECEASED, MOHAMMED ASLAM KHAN,
                     EXECUTOR, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 6580-95.                     Filed January 20, 1998.



     John L. Burghardt, for petitioner.

     Robert E. Cudlip, for respondent.




             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     WRIGHT, Judge:   Respondent determined a deficiency of

$179,278 in petitioner's Federal estate tax.    After concessions

by petitioner,1 the sole issue for decision is whether decedent,

     1
       Petitioner has stipulated that it is not entitled to a
marital deduction of $7,000 or additional Schedule J expenses of
                                                   (continued...)
                                   - 2 -

Barkat A. Khan, was a resident of the United States at the time

of his death.       If decedent was a resident of the United States at

the time of his death, petitioner is subject to the Federal

estate tax imposed on the estates of U.S. residents under section

20012 and is entitled to the unified estate and gift tax credit

of $192,800 allowed under section 2010.         If decedent was a

nonresident at the time of his death, petitioner is subject to

the Federal estate tax imposed on the estates of noncitizen

nonresidents under section 2101 and is entitled to a unified

credit of $13,000 under section 2102(c)(1).

                             FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.       The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached

thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.

     Decedent, Barkat A. Khan, died in Pakistan on February 25,

1991.       Decedent's son Mohammed Aslam Khan (Aslam) is the executor

of decedent's estate and resided in Butte City, California, when

the petition was filed in this case.

     Decedent was born in India in 1910.         In 1947, the area of

India in which decedent lived became part of the newly formed


        1
      (...continued)
$4,575.
        2
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the date of decedent's
death, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
                                 - 3 -

Pakistan.     At that time, decedent became a citizen of Pakistan

and was a citizen of Pakistan at the time of his death.

        In 1912, decedent's father, Namat Khan (Namat), left India

and immigrated to the United States.     Decedent and his mother,

however, remained in India.     Decedent farmed a 15-acre parcel of

land in India.     In 1935, decedent married Hussain Bibi Khan in

India.    They had four children, including two sons, Aslam and

Ashiq Ali Khan (Ashiq), and two daughters, Ahmed Bibi and

Sarwaree Bibi.    All four children were born in India or Pakistan.

     During his lifetime, decedent spoke only Punjabi.     He did

not speak English and could not read or write any language.

     When decedent's father, Namat, immigrated to the United

States in 1912, he joined his brother Babu Khan (Babu) in Butte

City, California.    Babu had immigrated to the United States in

1901.    Soon after Namat immigrated to the United States, two more

of his brothers, Adalat Khan (Adalat) and Munshi Khan (Munshi),

also came to the United States.    Namat and his three brothers

established a farming and real estate business in Glenn County,

California.

     In 1935, Namat formed another farming partnership (Fazal-

Namat Ranch partnership) near Butte City, California, with Fazal

Mohamed (Fazal).    Fazal was unrelated to Namat and had immigrated

from India to the United States in 1924.
                                 - 4 -

     Two of Namat's brothers, Adalat and Munshi, died before

1953.   They were not survived by any descendants, and following

their deaths, Namat and Babu controlled the family business.

     Namat died in November of 1958 while visiting his wife and

family in Pakistan.     Namat's estate primarily consisted of his

50-percent interest in the Fazal-Namat Ranch partnership, plus

interests in residential rental apartments and commercial

properties located in Chico and Cridley, California.     Namat left

three-fourths of his estate to decedent and one-eighth to each of

decedent's cousins, Chrag Mohamed Khan (Chrag) and Mohammed Ali

Khan (Mohammed Ali).    Although the Fazal-Namat Ranch partnership

technically terminated upon Namat's death, Fazal, as the

surviving partner, continued to manage the business of the ranch

with court approval for a period of 5 years.

     In 1958, shortly after Namat's death, decedent's son Aslam

came to the United States.     Aslam attended high school and

college.   He joined Babu in running the family business and

worked part time for the Fazal-Namat Ranch.

     In 1963, Aslam married Sarwaree Begum, who also had

immigrated to the United States from India.    Aslam and Sarwaree

have three daughters.

     In July of 1965, Babu died leaving no descendants.     During

Babu's lifetime, he had given interests in properties in

California to decedent's sons, Aslam and Ashiq.    Those interests
                                - 5 -

included real property interests in Chico, California, and stock

in Yuba Plaza, Inc., a corporation formed to develop a regional

shopping center.   At the time of his death, Babu's estate

consisted of farmland and a rental dwelling in Imperial County

and his remaining stock in Yuba Plaza, Inc.    In his will, Babu

left one-half of his estate to decedent's son Aslam and one-sixth

each to Chrag, Mohammed Ali, and Hushmat Bebe, all of whom were

citizens of Pakistan.    Aslam was the executor of Babu's estate.

Aslam was the only family member in the United States and

continued to operate the family business in partnership with an

unrelated individual.

     In 1969, Aslam received a bachelor's degree in agriculture

from Chico State University and became a full-time trainee under

Fazal.   The relationship between Aslam and Fazal eventually

deteriorated.   Aslam stopped working with Fazal and enrolled at

Chico State University to study for a master's degree in

agriculture.

     In April of 1971, decedent came to the United States for the

first time on a temporary visitor visa.    At that time, decedent

was 61 years of age.    Decedent's wife, son Ashiq, and two

daughters remained in Pakistan.    Decedent lived with his son

Aslam and Aslam's family while in the United States.    Late in

1971, Aslam developed severe health problems, and he lost most of

his eyesight.   Although decedent's temporary visa allowed him to
                                - 6 -

stay in the United States for only 6 months, decedent obtained

extensions that permitted him to stay in the United States until

March of 1974.

     Fazal died on April 28, 1972, while decedent was in the

United States.    Fazal left his interest in the Fazal-Namat Ranch

partnership to his wife and five nephews.    Decedent sought and

was granted an extension of his visa into 1974 in order to

resolve problems with the dissolution of the Fazal-Namat Ranch

partnership.    The dissolution of the partnership required

partitioning of the partnership property.    The partnership farmed

approximately 2,000 acres of irrigated rice land, some of which

were leased.    The property included valuable leases, land,

machinery, equipment, a storage/dryer complex, and the

headquarters.    The division of the land required creating

easements for roads, drainage, irrigation, and airstrips.      Land

used for growing rice must be leveled periodically at a cost of

approximately $200 per acre.    As a result, the acreage that had

been most recently leveled was more desirable than the rest.

     In July of 1973, Aslam obtained a permanent resident visa.

Decedent requested an extension of his visa beyond April of 1974.

His request was denied, and he returned to Pakistan on February

4, 1974.3

     3
         On Sept. 14, 1974, decedent's son Ashiq visited the
United States on a temporary visa. In October of 1974, Ashiq
applied to have his status changed to that of a nonimmigrant
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 7 -

     After decedent returned to Pakistan, he attempted to obtain

a permanent resident visa.   Robert Kutz (Kutz), who has been the

Khan family's attorney since 1954, wrote a letter dated September

26, 1975, to the U.S. Consul General in Lahore, Pakistan, "with

respect to the anticipated applications for permanent residency

visa to the United States of * * * [decedent] and his wife

Hussain Bibi."   The stated purpose of the letter was to advise

the Consul General that decedent owned a substantial amount of

property in California and was capable of financially supporting

himself and his wife in the United States.   The Immigration and

Naturalization Service, however, informed decedent that he would

not be granted a permanent resident visa until his son Aslam

became a U.S. citizen.

     On November 15, 1976, the Fazal-Namat Ranch partnership was

formally dissolved.   Although the partnership was formally

dissolved, not all of the property division was made at that

time.4

     On November 15, 1976, decedent, Aslam, Ashiq, and decedent's

cousins, Chrag and Mohammed Ali, formed a partnership called


     3
      (...continued)
student. It does not appear from the record that the change in
status was granted.
     4
        One of Fazal's nephews died shortly before the agreement
on the division of the partnership property had been reached,
leaving a widow and seven minor children. As a result of the
nephew's death, the division of partnership property had to be
approved by the guardianship court.
                                 - 8 -

Namat & Aslam Khan Farms.    They placed the assets distributed to

them from the Fazal-Namat Ranch partnership in the new

partnership in order to keep the farm operating.     Although they

formed the new partnership, they immediately began discussing

partitioning the land and machinery because Chrag and Mohammed

Ali wanted their own separate farms.     At the time, decedent,

Ashiq, Chrag, and Mohammed Ali were in Pakistan.     Aslam managed

the partnership's 1,300-acre rice farming operation because he

was the only partner then residing in the United States.

     Fred Lucchesi (Lucchesi) is a public accountant.     Lucchesi

prepared the tax returns for the Fazal-Namat Ranch partnership,

the Namat-Aslam Ranch partnership, and the partners of those

partnerships until 1982 when he sold his practice to Harrison-

Dailey Accountancy Corp. (Harrison-Dailey).     Because of Aslam's

poor health, Aslam requested that Lucchesi continue to do the

bookkeeping and compile all tax information to be provided to

Harrison-Daily.

     John Woodmansee (Woodmansee) is a certified public

accountant associated with Harrison-Daily who began preparing tax

returns for the Khan family in 1982.     Although Woodmansee

prepared decedent's tax returns, Woodmansee never met decedent

and met with Aslam only on four or five occasions.     Lucchesi

provided Woodmansee with the information necessary to prepare

decedent's tax returns.     Woodmansee did not review the returns
                                - 9 -

with decedent or any other member of the Khan family.     After the

returns were completed, Lucchesi would pick up the returns and

take them to Aslam.   Aslam was not able to read the returns

because of his poor eyesight.   Lucchesi did not review the

returns in detail with decedent or Aslam.     Lucchesi merely told

Aslam where to sign the returns and whether there was any tax

owed or a refund due.   Aslam signed decedent's returns pursuant

to a power of attorney.5   Lucchesi then placed the signed returns

in envelopes and mailed them.   For taxable years before and

including 1984, Aslam filed Forms 1040NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien

Income Tax Returns, for decedent.

     In June of 1982, Aslam became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

After obtaining his U.S. citizenship, Aslam planned to have his

entire family come to the United States.

     In March of 1984, Aslam went to Pakistan and met with

decedent and the other Pakistani partners in an attempt to

resolve differences among the partners.     In July of 1984, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture began requiring recipients of rice

program subsidies to have Social Security numbers.    Although

Aslam had a Social Security number, decedent, Mohammed Ali, and

Chrag had only temporary tax identification numbers.




     5
        On Apr. 6, 1981, decedent executed a general power of
attorney, naming Aslam as his attorney-in-fact.
                              - 10 -

     In 1984, decedent and Ashiq applied for immigrant visas.

Ashiq's priority date was June 11, 1984.   By letter dated

September 4, 1984, the American Vice Consul in Lahore, Pakistan,

informed Ashiq:

     Although this office had received satisfactory evidence
     establishing your entitlement to immigrant
     classification, a waiting period of an indeterminate
     length of time must be anticipated before further
     consideration can be given to your application. This
     is necessary because there are more applicants for
     visas than there are immigrant visa numbers available
     under the numerical limitations prescribed by law. At
     the present time, visa numbers in your category are * *
     * available only for persons who have a priority date
     earlier than Nov. 1979.

     On October 1, 1984, decedent applied for and was issued an

immigrant visa and alien registration based on his status as the

parent of a U.S. citizen.   On the application, decedent indicated

that his wife and children would not be accompanying or following

him, but that he intended to stay in the United States

permanently.   On January 20, 1985, decedent entered the United

States on a permanent resident visa.   Decedent was issued an

alien registration receipt card ("green card") that identified

him as a resident alien entitled to reside permanently and work

in the United States.   Decedent's wife, his two daughters, and

his son Ashiq remained in Pakistan.6




     6
        Ashiq was finally granted permanent immigration visas for
his family in 1996, after waiting 12 years.
                               - 11 -

     While in the United States, decedent resided with Aslam and

his family.    Aslam lived in a house owned by the family

partnership.   He added a bedroom and bath to the house for

decedent's use.    Decedent obtained a Social Security number.

Decedent did not obtain a library card or join any social

organizations, such as the American Association of Retired

Persons.    He was often visited by friends and associates who had

come to the United States from Pakistan.

     For purposes of filing decedent's 1985 tax return, Lucchesi

advised Woodmansee that decedent had come to the United States

during 1985 to live.   Woodmansee prepared a Form 1040 marked

"dual status" for decedent for the taxable year 1985, because

decedent resided in Pakistan for part of the year and in the

United States for the remainder of the year.    Aslam filed the

Form 1040 for decedent for the 1985 taxable year.

     Decedent and Aslam frequently met with Kutz to discuss the

division of the remaining assets of the Fazal-Namat Ranch.

Although decedent understood a little English, he did not read,

write, or speak English.    Aslam served as a translator for

decedent.

     In 1986, decedent thought he had reached an oral agreement

with Chrag and Mohammed Ali for the division of the partnership

property.   During that year, Aslam became ill and was

hospitalized for about a month.    Aslam was not able to travel to
                                - 12 -

Pakistan because of his poor health.     On December 24, 1986,

decedent traveled to Pakistan to visit his family and to

formalize the agreement with Chrag and Mohammed Ali for the

division of the partnership property.

     Before leaving for Pakistan, decedent applied for a permit

to reenter the United States.    A reentry permit shows that the

person to whom the permit is issued is returning to the United

States from a temporary visit abroad and relieves the person from

the necessity of securing a visa from an American Consul before

returning to the United States.    On January 7, 1987, the

Sacramento office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

issued decedent a permit to reenter the United States without a

visa (reentry permit); the reentry permit was valid for multiple

entries and had an expiration date of January 6, 1989.    The

following "Important Information" concerning the effect of

claiming nonresident alien status for Federal income tax purposes

is provided on the last page (page 16) of the reentry permit:

     An alien who has actually established residence in the
     United States after having been admitted as an
     immigrant or after having adjusted status to that of an
     immigrant, and who is considering the filing of a
     nonresident alien tax return or the non-filing of a tax
     return on the ground that he is a nonresident alien,
     should consider carefully the consequences under the
     immigration and naturalization laws if he does so.

          If an alien takes such action, he may be regarded
     as having abandoned his residence in the United States
     and as having lost his immigrant status under the
     immigration and naturalization laws. As a consequence
     he may be ineligible for a visa or other document for
                                - 13 -

     which lawful permanent resident aliens are eligible; he
     may be inadmissible to the United States if he seeks
     admission as a returning resident; and he may become
     ineligible for naturalization on the basis of his
     original entry or adjustment as an immigrant.

     The reentry permit was mailed to decedent's California

address.     Aslam read the reentry permit to determine the

expiration date and then mailed the permit to decedent in

Pakistan.     Aslam did not read the "Important Information" on the

last page of the permit.

     Aslam's wife Sarwaree and his eldest daughter Robeena

accompanied decedent on his trip to Pakistan.     Sarwaree and

Robeena purchased round-trip tickets and, after a 5-week visit,

returned to the United States.     Decedent did not purchase a

round-trip ticket because he did not know how long it would take

to finalize the partnership agreement.

     Decedent's wife lived with Ashiq and his family in

Pakistan.7    When decedent returned to Pakistan, he stayed with

Ashiq.

     When preparing decedent's return for 1986, Lucchesi informed

Woodmansee that decedent had left the United States permanently

on December 24, 1986.    On the basis of that information,

Woodmansee prepared a Form 1040NR for decedent for the 1986

     7
        Ashiq owned two houses, one located in the city and one
in the village. The house in the village was previously owned by
decedent on decedent's 15-acre farm. The record does not
indicate exactly when decedent transferred ownership of the house
to his son, but it is clear that Ashiq owned the house when
decedent returned to Pakistan in 1986.
                               - 14 -

taxable year.    On the return, Woodmansee indicated that decedent

had left the United States permanently on December 24, 1986.

Decedent's 1986 Form 1040NR was filed with the Internal Revenue

Service at the Philadelphia Service Center on October 20, 1987.

     In Pakistan, decedent found it difficult to work out the

agreement with Chrag.   During 1987, decedent again thought he had

reached an agreement.   Kutz drafted an agreement and sent it to

Pakistan.   Again Chrag refused to sign the agreement.8

     While decedent was in Pakistan, his health began to fail.

He was hospitalized in Pakistan from October 28 through November

10, 1988.   Decedent's reentry permit expired January 6, 1989.

Following his hospitalization, he was very weak and his health

continued to deteriorate.   He was hospitalized again from

February 9 through February 15, 1989, and December 11 through

December 20, 1990.

     Aslam visited his father in Pakistan in 1990.   At that time

decedent was not able to walk and often needed assistance with

bathing and eating.   Decedent wanted to return to the United

States at that time, but his health would not permit him to make

the long trip.




     8
         A final written agreement was not reached until March of
1993.
                              - 15 -

     Woodmansee prepared decedent's income tax returns on Forms

1040NR for taxable years 1987 through 1990.   Lucchesi took the

returns to Aslam and mailed them after Aslam signed the returns.9

     Decedent died in Pakistan on February 25, 1991.    In his

will, decedent bequeathed $7,000 to his wife and $15,000 to each

of his daughters.   He bequeathed $2,000 in trust for the benefit

of the poor of Pakistan.   Decedent left the remainder of his

estate (valued at $646,190 on the estate tax return) to be

divided equally between his sons, Aslam and Ashiq.

     Kutz assisted Aslam with the probate of decedent's estate.

In order to prepare an inventory and evaluation of the assets,

Kutz requested a copy of decedent's last income tax return.      Kutz

noticed that a nonresident return had been filed.    Since he

understood that decedent was a resident, he thought the wrong

return had been filed.   He called Woodmansee to question the

filing of the nonresident return.   Kutz followed up the phone

call with a letter to Woodmansee after researching the income tax

rules pertaining to the filing of returns by resident aliens.

     On or about March 25, 1992, an amended Form 1040X for each

of the taxable years 1986 through 1990 was filed with the

Internal Revenue Service at the Philadelphia Service Center, on




     9
        Decedent's Forms 1040NR for taxable years 1987 through
1990 were filed with the Internal Revenue Service at the
Philadelphia Service Center.
                                - 16 -

the basis of decedent's status as a resident alien during those

years.

     On the Form 706, United States Estate Tax Return, petitioner

indicated that decedent's domicile at the time of death was Butte

City, California, and that decedent established the domicile in

1985.     Most of decedent's business and property interests were

located in the United States.     At the time of decedent's death,

those interests were valued at approximately $746,000.     Decedent

also maintained bank accounts in the United States.10    At the

time of his death the value of the deposits in his bank accounts

was over $70,000.    The only property decedent owned in Pakistan

was the 15-acre farm, valued at $15,000 at the time of his death.

In computing the Federal estate tax, petitioner claimed a unified

credit of $192,800.

     Respondent determined that decedent was not a resident of

the United States on the date of his death and limited

petitioner's unified credit to $13,000.

                                OPINION

     Section 2001 imposes a transfer tax on the taxable estate

(determined under section 2053) of every decedent who is a

citizen or resident of the United States.    Section 2010 permits a

credit of $192,800 against the estate tax imposed by section



     10
        Decedent maintained a bank account in the United States
as early as 1976.
                              - 17 -

2001.   By contrast, section 2101 imposes a transfer tax on the

taxable estate (determined under section 2106) of every decedent

who is not a citizen and not a resident of the United States.

Section 2102 generally permits a credit of $13,000 against the

estate tax imposed by section 2101.

     Decedent was a citizen of Pakistan at the time of his death.

Therefore, since decedent was not a citizen of the United States,

the proper computation of the estate tax liability depends upon

whether decedent was a resident of the United States at the time

of his death within the meaning of the estate tax provisions of

the Internal Revenue Code.

     For purposes of the estate tax, a resident is an individual

who, at the time of his death, had his domicile in the United

States.   Sec. 20.0-1(b)(1), Estate Tax Regs.   A nonresident is an

individual who, at the time of his death, had his domicile

outside the United States.   Sec. 20.0-1(b)(2), Estate Tax Regs.

     The term "residence" or "domicile" as contemplated by the

Federal estate tax statutes has never been construed or defined

by an all-inclusive or all-exclusive definition.    "In fact, it

seems that such a definition is impossible.     Every case possesses

peculiarities different from any other case, and the issue must

be decided in the light of the facts peculiar to each case."

Bank of New York & Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 21 B.T.A. 197, 203

(1930).
                                 - 18 -

     Under ordinary circumstances, the place of birth is one's

first domicile.     Id.   There is no question about decedent's

having been domiciled in Pakistan before his coming to the United

States in 1971 on a temporary visitor visa.

     We start with the fundamental principle that "a domicile

once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have

been changed."    Mitchell v. United States, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.)

350, 353 (1874); Estate of Nienhuys v. Commissioner, 17 T.C.

1149, 1159 (1952).    If there is doubt, the presumption is that

the domicile has not been changed.        Weis v. Commissioner, 30

B.T.A. 478, 487 (1934).     Section 20.0-1(b)(1), Estate Tax Regs.,

provides in part:

     A person acquires a domicile in a place by living
     there, for even a brief period of time, with no
     definite present intention of later removing therefrom.
     Residence without the requisite intention to remain
     indefinitely will not suffice to constitute domicile,
     nor will intention to change domicile effect such a
     change unless accompanied by actual removal.

     Thus, for decedent to have established a new domicile in the

United States, two things are indispensable:       (1) Decedent must

have lived in the United States, and (2) he must have intended to

remain here indefinitely.     Both elements must be present, and one

without the other is insufficient to establish a new domicile.

Mitchell v. United States, supra; Forni v. Commissioner, 22 T.C.

975 (1954); Estate of Nienhuys v. Commissioner, supra; sec. 20.0-

1(b)(1), Estate Tax Regs.
                                - 19 -

     Decedent lived in the United States from April of 1971 until

February of 1974 and from January of 1985 until December of 1986.

We must examine the facts to determine whether during either of

those periods, decedent intended to remain indefinitely.      As the

Supreme Court stated in Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 624

(1914):   "The essential fact that raises a change of abode to a

change of domicil is the absence of any intention to live

elsewhere, * * * or, 'the absence of any present intention of not

residing permanently or indefinitely in' the new abode."

(Citations omitted.)

     After careful consideration of the entire record, we

conclude that when decedent came to the United States in 1985, he

intended to reside here permanently.

     Decedent first came to the United States in 1971 on a

temporary visitor visa, and he obtained extensions that allowed

him to stay in the United States for almost 3 years.    He began

seeking a permanent resident visa at least as early as 1975 but

was informed that he would not be granted a permanent visa until

his son Aslam became a naturalized citizen of the United States.

In 1984, after Aslam obtained his citizenship, decedent applied

for and obtained a permanent resident visa.    He entered the

United States on that permanent visa on January 20, 1985, and

immediately obtained a green card and a Social Security number.

     Most of decedent's business and property interests were

located in the United States.    As early as 1976, decedent
                               - 20 -

maintained a bank account in the United States.    He owned

substantial farming and business interests located in California

that he had inherited from his father in 1958.    Decedent gave his

house in Pakistan to his son Ashiq, and the only property

decedent owned in Pakistan was the 15-acre farm.

       Decedent's family had a long history of immigrating to the

United States.    When decedent was a young child, his father and

three uncles immigrated to the United States and established

extensive farming and real estate operations.    Decedent's eldest

son, Aslam, came to the United States in 1958, was granted a

permanent resident visa in 1973, and acquired his U.S.

citizenship in 1982.

       Decedent's second son, Ashiq, also wanted to immigrate to

the United States.    He applied for a permanent resident visa in

1984, after Aslam obtained his citizenship, but was not able to

obtain an immigrant visa at that time because of the limitation

on the number of immigration visas available as prescribed by

law.    He finally was granted permanent immigration visas for his

family in 1996, after waiting 12 years.

       We do not think that decedent's failure to obtain a library

card or driver's license after immigrating to the United States

indicates that he did not intend to permanently reside in this

country, considering he could not read or write English (or any

other language).    Nor would we expect an individual who did not
                               - 21 -

speak English to join social organizations such as the American

Association of Retired Persons.

     Additionally, we do not think the fact that decedent's wife

remained in Pakistan shows that decedent did not intend to reside

permanently in the United States.    From the time decedent was 2

years old until his parents' deaths, his mother resided in

Pakistan while his father resided in the United States.

     On the basis of the record, we conclude that decedent lived

in the United States in 1985 and at that time decedent intended

to remain in the United States permanently.    Therefore, decedent

became domiciled in the United States in 1985.

     The fundamental principle that a domicile once acquired is

presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed now

applies to decedent's domicile in the United States.    To

establish that decedent reestablished domicile in Pakistan, it

must be shown that he lived in Pakistan and intended to remain

there indefinitely.    Both elements must be present, and one

without the other is insufficient to establish a new domicile.

     Decedent lived in Pakistan from December 24, 1986, until the

time of his death.    Living in Pakistan without the requisite

intent to remain there indefinitely, however, will not suffice to

constitute domicile.    Sec. 20.0-1(b)(1), Estate Tax Regs.   A

person acquires a domicile in a place by living there "with no

definite present intention of later removing therefrom."      Sec.

20.0-1(b)(1), Estate Tax Regs. (emphasis added).
                                - 22 -

     Respondent contends that the filing of Forms 1040NR for the

taxable years after 1985 on decedent's behalf indicates that

decedent intended to abandon his domicile in the United States.

We disagree.

     Decedent's tax returns were prepared by Woodmansee on the

basis of information provided by Lucchesi.    When Lucchesi took

the returns to Aslam to be signed, he did not read or explain the

returns to Aslam.   Because of Aslam's poor eyesight, he did not

read the returns himself.   Aslam signed the returns under a power

of attorney, and decedent never saw the returns.    We do not think

that the filing of the Forms 1040NR on decedent's behalf under

these circumstances establishes that decedent intended to abandon

his domicile in the United States.

     Furthermore, the term "resident" has different meanings in

different settings under differing statutes.     Forni v.

Commissioner, 22 T.C. at 986.     An individual's classification as

a resident of the United States for purposes of the Federal

estate tax is dependent upon his being domiciled in the United

States, whereas an individual's classification as a resident for

purposes of the Federal income tax is determined by the standards

set forth in section 7701(b).11    Since an individual can have but

     11
        Section 7701(b)(1)(A) provides that, for purposes of the
Federal income tax, an alien individual is a resident of the
United States (1) if he is a lawful permanent resident of the
United States at any time during the calendar year or (2) if he
meets the "substantial presence test". An individual is a lawful
                                                   (continued...)
                              - 23 -

one domicile, an individual may be a resident of only one country

for purposes of the Federal estate tax.   An individual, however,

may be a resident of more than one country for purposes of the

Federal income tax under section 7701(b).   Marsh v. Commissioner,

68 T.C. 68, 72 (1977), affd. without published opinion 588 F.2d

1350 (4th Cir. 1978).   Since the legal standard for determining

residency for estate tax purposes differs substantially from that

for determining residency for income tax purposes, we do not

think the filing of the Forms 1040NR establishes that decedent

did not intend to return to the United States.

     Decedent returned to Pakistan in 1986 to visit with his

family and to meet with his Pakistani cousins to formalize the

agreement to divide the partnership property.    Before leaving the

United States, decedent applied for a reentry permit.   Decedent's

actions indicate that when he left the United States, he intended

to return as soon as the agreement was finalized.   We think he

did not purchase a round-trip ticket because he did not know

exactly how long it would take to formalize the agreement with

     11
      (...continued)
permanent resident of the United States at any time if (A) that
individual has the status of having been lawfully accorded the
privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an
immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, and (B) that
status has not been revoked (and has not been administratively or
judicially determined to have been abandoned). Sec. 7701(b)(6).
An individual meets the substantial presence test with respect to
any year in which he is present in the United States at least 31
days during the taxable year and a sum of 183 days, calculated
pursuant to a weighted formula, during the taxable year and 2
preceding years. Sec. 7701(b)(3)(A).
                                - 24 -

Chrag and Mohammed Ali.    Decedent had a definite intention of

leaving Pakistan and returning to the United States.      A change of

abode with present intent to return to the former abode upon the

contemplated happening of an event in the indefinite future, such

as completion of business, recovery of health, termination of

employment, or recall by employer, is not a change of residence

or domicile.    Crespi v. Commissioner, 44 B.T.A. 670, 676 (1941).

Therefore, decedent did not acquire a new domicile in Pakistan

when he left the United States in December of 1986.

     We also do not think that the expiration of the reentry

permit indicates that decedent changed his mind and abandoned his

intention to return to the United States.      The reentry permit

expired after decedent's health began to fail and following his

first hospitalization in Pakistan.       The expiration of the reentry

permit meant that decedent would have had to apply for a

returning resident visa from the American Consul before returning

to the United States.     It was not unreasonable for decedent or a

family member to wait until decedent's health improved and he was

able to travel before applying for a returning resident visa.

     A domicile is not changed even by long continued absence if

there is any intention of returning, "even though intention be

doubtful".     Weis v. Commissioner, 30 B.T.A. at 487 (emphasis

added).   Decedent had a definite intention of leaving Pakistan

and returning to the United States.      Most of decedent's business

and property interests were located in the United States.      At the
                                - 25 -

time of decedent's death, those interests were valued at

approximately $746,000.     Decedent also maintained bank accounts

in the United States.     At the time of his death the value of the

deposits in his bank accounts was over $70,000.     By contrast, the

only property decedent owned in Pakistan was the 15-acre farm,

valued at $15,000 at the time of his death.     The record shows

that decedent wanted to return to the United States, but his poor

health prevented him from doing so.

     No one, except the individual, knows or can know with

absolute certainty whether, in fact, he chooses to abandon his

domicile and adopt a new one.    "We can only have a belief of

varying degrees of certainty, after considering that person's

declarations, conduct, character, temperament, etc."     Bank of New

York & Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 21 B.T.A. at 203.     On the basis

of the record as a whole, we conclude that decedent never

abandoned his domicile in the United States.    We hold, therefore,

that decedent was a resident of the United States on the date of

his death.

     To reflect the foregoing and because of concessions by

petitioner,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                      under Rule 155.
