|
Posted by Alan on July 26, 2008, 1:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>
>> U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 24, 2008
>> Ordlock v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 06-74539
>> A tax court's determination that wife is ineligible for a refund
>> under 26 U.S.C. section 6015 for payments on her husband's tax
>> debt paid from their community property is affirmed, as nothing
>> in section 6015 clearly preempts California community property
>> law with respect to an innocent spouse's entitlement to a refund
>> for a community property payment on the non-innocent spouse's
>> federal income tax liability.
>>
>> Via Findlaw:
>> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0674539P.pdf
>>
>> Via 9th Circuit:
>> http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8432EF655C41770882
>> 5748F007CDF30/$file/0674539.pdf
>
> Interesting case - not the typical innocent spouse situation. I'm not
> surprised by the outcome. In addition to the legal arguments, it just
> doesn't "smell" right.
>
> But I wonder how a marital property agreement would affect this kind of
> case, since California law allows couples to agree that their property
> will be separate instead of community.
>
> Stu
>
I'm not a lawyer.. but as CA law allows for pre and post marital
agreements, I would think that the document would be construed to
be state law and would determine the outcome under the conditions
outlined in the case.
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap