Articles Posted in Tax

Published on:

            Minton v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2018‑15, 2018 WL 718520 (2018)

 

(a) Facts: A woman married a man who ran a struggling air conditioner business.  The wife was aware that the business was struggling, as the parties had difficulty paying their bills, but the husband convinced her that a big contract was coming and success was just around the corner.  He even convinced her to make a tax-penalized early withdrawal from her 401(k) plan and invest the funds in his business.  The wife was abused verbally during the marriage, but not physically.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Cojocar v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2017‑189, 2017 WL 4321149 (2017)

 

(a) Facts: A husband and wife filed joint tax returns from 2009 to 2012.  The 2011 return reported $170,870 in income for the husband, $30,870 in income for the wife, and $289 in interest income.  The parties did not pay the tax reported on the return.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Gebman v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2017‑184, 2017 WL 4158699 (2017)

 

(a) Facts: A husband and wife signed a joint tax return.  The IRS assessed a deficiency.  Both parties sought relief in the Tax Court.

Continue reading →

Published on:

            Jacobsen v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2018‑115, 2018 WL 3598803 (2018)

 

(a) Facts: The husband worked 12-hour shifts 14 days per month as a machine operator at a factory.  He also operated a home inspection business.  The wife was employed as an accountant and also managed the finances of both the home inspection business and the family.  The husband never reviewed bank or credit statements or otherwise examined the parties’ finances.  “Petitioner relied on Ms. Lemmens to handle the family finances because of her training as an accountant.”  2018 WL 3598803, at *1.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Sharp v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2017‑208, 2017 WL 4973234 (2017)

 

(a) Facts:    A woman lived with a man in California.  The couple was not married.  The man had a child by a prior relationship, and the child had two minor children.  The man was, therefore, the children’s biological grandfather.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Kirkpatrick v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2018-20, 2018 WL 1040955 (2018)

 

(a) Facts: The wife sued the husband for divorce in Maryland.  A Maryland court issued a pendente lite order, providing for temporary support.  In addition, the order required the husband to “transfer to Ms. Kirkpatrick the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) directly (and in a non‑taxable transaction) into an IRA appropriately titled in Ms. Kirkpatrick’s name” and to “pay to the Plaintiff a lump sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) . . . for Pendente Lite Attorney’s Fees and Suit Money.”  2018 WL 1040955, at *4.  The parties were eventually divorced.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Lucas v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2018‑80, 2018 WL 2948427 (2018)

 

(a) Facts: The parties divorced in Florida in 2011.  While the divorce was pending, the husband was in the process of liquidating his business, Vicis Capital, LLC.  He received, while the action was pending, $4.7 million in distributions.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Barry v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2017-237, 2017 WL 5899406 (2017)

 

(a) Facts: When the parties were divorced, the husband agreed to pay the wife $2,400 per month in alimony.  Twenty-four years later, the husband filed an action against the wife in federal court for breach of contract, arguing that he had overpaid alimony and that the wife was required to return the overpayment.  The action was dismissed quickly as time-barred.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Logue v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2017‑234, 2017 WL 5713945 (2017)

 

(a) Facts: The parties entered into a premarital agreement.  The agreement provided, among other things, that the wife would receive, upon divorce, a lump sum of $100,000, plus $10,000 for each year the parties were married.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Leslie v. Comm’r, 725 F. App’x 597 (9th Cir. 2018) (unpublished)

(a) Facts: A husband and wife signed a separation agreement to settle a California divorce case.  In a section entitled “Spousal Support,” the agreement awarded the wife $7,000 per month, stating expressly that it would end upon either party’s death.

Continue reading →