<p>This varies so much from state to state and from school to school. </p>
<p>I have noticed that a very common public-school merit scholarship is to offer in state tuition to OOS honors students.</p>
<p>An interesting note - All Ohio students who are admitted can attend Eastern Michigan University and pay in-state tuition. Some programs there are great. An inexpensive option if you have the right major and you are an Ohioan who wants to be in the Ann Arbor/Detroit area.</p>
<p>
Your case is definitely sneaky and probably against the law.</p>
<p>I think taxman probably gifted the money to his daughter, which is not illegal.</p>
<p>*
I think taxman probably gifted the money to his daughter, which is not illegal*</p>
<p>No- but it doesn’t seem to meet independent resident criteria, IMO
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.uc.edu/registrar/residency_reciprocity_metro/residency.html[/url]”>http://www.uc.edu/registrar/residency_reciprocity_metro/residency.html</a></p>
<p>Thanks for finding that, ek. Now we know the reason for the gleeful “I got away with it” tone. He understands that he violated both the letter and the spirit of the rule.</p>
<p>For folks who AREN’T “pre-funded” but have generous loved ones who have given them gifts and saved all that they’ve ever been able to earn over the years, the total can add up, especially if it was invested well. Our kids had enough to have paid for a full year of tuition and expenses at a low to moderately priced U–NOT the U they actually attended. Our kids’ lifetime savings and earnings up until they entered college, even with investments would have funded about a semester or so or the U they attended.</p>
<p>Of course, some kids do some very lucrative jobs. One of our friends’ S’s drove a HS 2nd hand book seller out of business because he provided better prices and service than the national competitor. He ran the business for two years but found no one that wanted to work as hard and take it over (it required a LOT of sweat equity). Because he had been so enterprising in HS, we was offered several full-tuition scholarships at many attractive Us, including the one he ultimately chose.</p>
<p>There’s been a lot of controversy in North Carolina about servicepeople being denied in-state tuition benefits, even if they’re stationed in-state and have declared NC to be their state of residency. From the Raleigh News and Observer a few months back:</p>
<p>“A 2011 amendment to the G.I. Bill changed how the tuition benefit is calculated, though, and the UNC system now faces a lawsuit charging that this revision has led it to bilk some service members out of cheaper in-state tuition. But the real problem has to do with how in-state residency is determined.”</p>
<p>NC has lots of active duty and veteran military enrolled in higher education that are scrambling - between sequestration cuts and constant changes in interpretation of laws - to pay for higher education that SHOULD be subsidized due to their years of service.</p>
<p>My brother was retired military and lived in Indiana, his dependents could get instate tuition even though they lived in Washington.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many parents are so careful about what sort of example they are setting for their kids. But when you lie in order to save a few dollars, is it really worth it to compromise your ethics in that way?
Some things are more costly than money.</p>
<p>^^ Couldn’t agree more.</p>
<p>Lasma and Emeraldcity, I did NOT violate the law in any way. The money that my daughter had was either earned income received as a result of working for us over the years ( which made the payments deductible) and we made gifts that were made over 12 months prior to her entering UC. I didn’t violate any rules! In fact, it was University of Cincinnati, after investigating this, who agreed to extend her “in-state” status. I simply followed the rules, which is what Apple Computer did when they avoided billions in taxes. It isn’t my fault or that of Apple when we take advantage of the law as it is written. If people here don’t want to do as I did or utilize the strategies recommended in the article, that is their prerogative. However, the strategy worked and worked very well.</p>
<p>Since my daughter graduated from UC, I am talking about it now. I simply waited till she graduated before disclosing this.</p>
<p>I’m thinking that anyone affluent enough to be gifting 13K per year per parent to their children (so 26K per year) for all but the final year of HS so as to stay within the law, might also be affluent enough to actually pay for the college of their kids choice. </p>
<p>And what happens if the U in question denies the in-state status? You take your kids “prefund” and go to another, more welcoming out of state U?</p>
<p>What am I missing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is that?</p>
<p>Lasma, I didn’t want Ohio or University of Cincinnati to change the law. For example, with the information that came out about what Apple Computers did in reducing their taxes, I would bet Congress will make a change in the tax law, I didn’t want Ohio to make any changes till my daughter graduated.</p>
<p>Blossom notes, “I’m thinking that anyone affluent enough to be gifting 13K per year per parent to their children (so 26K per year) for all but the final year of HS so as to stay within the law, might also be affluent enough to actually pay for the college of their kids choice.”</p>
<p>Response: What I do with my money is certainly my business. I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of good laws available to US citizens. From my experience of dealing with a lot of rich folks, they didn’t get affluent blowing their money. They always look for ways to cut costs and save money. Even some of the super wealthy have this philosophy.
My philosophy is that not everyone has to agree with what I did or even follow my advice. I put what I do in my life on posts like this. Folks are free to take advantage of the information or to choose to ignore it. This is why I love this country.</p>
<p>By the way, EmeraldKity, even though we met the rules, I don’t think that the passage that you cited was in existence when my daughter first enrolled. The school only wanted to see 3 months ( I think) of prior bank records for her. If she were enrolling today, I would certainly have instituted this at least a year before enrollment due to the legal change.</p>
<p>Finally as to setting an example for my kids, I don’t see anything wrong with what I did nor do I see it as unethical or illegal behavor. I used the law as it was written. This is what good lawyers do! I didn’t want to be one of the “sheared sheep.” I see nothing wrong with teaching my kids how to legally analyze legal rules and statutes in order to maximize the benefit to them. If you don’t want to do that, so be it. This is why I am always reading financial articles in order to get a financial leg up. However, isn’t this why most parents and kids come to College Confidential: to get a leg up on admissions? I am am simply doing the same thing financially, and I sincerely hope that my kids learn this behavior and do the same thing for their kids.</p>
<p>What if the kiddo decides to take the money & put it to other uses, which may or often may NOT have anything to do with a formal education? If the funds are gifted in in the kids’ name, it is the KID’s money, subject to the KID’s control, whims, and debts.</p>
<p>HImom, you are quite right. Fortunately, I have a great relationship with my kids. They wouldn’t do that. However, this is a risk, which is why any financial strategy has to be evaluated with consideration of the people involved. There are some sophisticated ways to get them the money and yet have some strings attached if you don’t totally trust your kids. Fortunately, I don’t have this problem.</p>
<p>By the way, it was NOT my intent here to be “gleeful” or boast about what I got away with. I was simply emphasizing that I have successfully used parts of the article that I cited .</p>
<p>There’s been a lot of controversy in North Carolina about servicepeople being denied in-state tuition benefits, even if they’re stationed in-state and have declared NC to be their state of residency.>></p>
<p>If they are stationed there, the Higher Education Act of 2008 guarantees them in-state tuition. The cases I have read about had other circumstances, such as a spouse moved to the state ahead of the military member, before orders were effective, thus not yet stationed there and not eligible for in-state. I’m not sure why it seems to be such a big issue in NC compared to other states from what I have read.</p>
<p>"“Spouses of service members on active duty for a period of more than 30 days are now eligible to receive in-state tuition at public colleges and universities in the state where they reside or are permanently stationed. Once a spouse is enrolled and paying in-state tuition, they will continue to pay the in-state tuition rate as long as they remain continuously enrolled at the institution, even if the service member is reassigned outside the state.”</p>
<p>taxguy, why do you think schools have these rules about in-state tuition?</p>
<p>Also – </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think Ohio would have changed their tax law based on what you alone got away with? You have that kind of influence? And doesn’t your fear that they might change the laws show your awareness that what you did – while legal – wasn’t too kosher?</p>
<p>
Exactly. That’s the problem. You know exactly what you did and that it went against the spirit of the law which is to give lower tuition to instate residents. You found a legal loophole but that doesn’t make it moral. And your child knows it. Pretty sure he/she knows what state he was really a resident of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you teach your kids to find clever ways of skirting the clear intent of rules. Funny, I spent 18 years teaching my D NOT to do this. I also taught her that if she finds herself saying things like …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>… then that’s probably a red flag.</p>
<p>I do wonder what taxguy would think , as an apparent Maryland taxpayer, about families using his scheme to get Maryland resident rates for his instate schools-when their kid is clearly only in Maryland for the purpose of attending college. If everybody did this, it would negate the whole idea of instate rates. Do you propose then that every kid who goes to an out of state public university should get instate rates simply by virtue of attending college in that state ? I 'm a little confused about your position.</p>