Quote Originally Posted by Pfunk View Post
So I think this is where the presumption is being made and why it is made. If residence and domicile are the same then the statutes, codes, regulations, etc. would be valid. But if the presumption is broken, these statutes, codes, regulations, etc. would no longer be applicable. Am I correct on this?
I don't think a presumption is being made by the State on whether a person is a resident. Rather people are presuming that they are the person that resides in the State.

It appears to me that some persons are creations of the State, and statutes do indeed apply to State creations. People express or perfect the presumption when they apply for State or state benefits, and declare their residency therein or there outside the State or state.

Now a domicile is not a residence, in the sense that the person's place of abode is considered permanent, although a person can permanently reside at a place. The person's intention is always to return to his domicile.

It's a very interesting word study to investigate the meanings of place, location, domicile, residence, abode, legal residence, and inhabitancy.