(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.
(a) Facts: A husband and wife signed a joint tax return. The IRS assessed a deficiency. Both parties sought relief in the Tax Court.
(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.
(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.
(a) Facts: A husband and wife divorced in 2006. The decree permitted the husband to take the dependency exemption for the child in odd-numbered years provided that he paid all court-ordered support.
(a) Facts: The parties were divorced in 2006. The divorce decree, which incorporated a separation agreement, ordered the husband to maintain any employer-provided life insurance policies for the benefit of the parties’ daughter until her emancipation.
(a) Facts: The parties were divorced in Delaware in 1995. The trial court divided the husband’s pension and ordered the wife to prepare a DRO. No DRO was ever signed.
(a) Facts: A husband divorced in Utah. A Utah state court entered at least two DROs dividing retirement benefits, each time reserving jurisdiction to amend the order in the future. The plan qualified the DROs.
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.
(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.
North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog