Demeter v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2014-238, 2014 WL 6645592 (2014)
(a) Facts: A husband and wife were married. During the marriage, the husband started a business, Sunshine Framing and Finishing (“Sunshine”). The wife was added as a vice president in 2008. She ran errands for the company and helped with its bookkeeping, but did not receive a salary. Sunshine’s bank account was used for personal expenses as well as business expenses; the parties had no individual bank accounts. Continue reading →
Hammernik v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2014-170, 2014 WL 4119398 (2014)
(a) Facts: A husband and wife were divorced in Wisconsin. In 2003, before the divorce, the husband’s business encountered hard times, and he withdrew $104,909 from his personal retirement account to pay living expenses. Continue reading →
The time you spend with your children is precious and the upcoming Halloween weekend should be no exception. Here are a few fun ideas to make the most of this holiday. Activities for this spook-tacular holiday should be age appropriate. Also take into account the personalities of your children. A child easily scared may not enjoy the same activities as one who is a thrill seeker. Taking these factors into consideration should make it easy to determine the best activity for your child this Halloween. Continue reading →
Varela v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2014-222, 2014 WL 53656631 (2014)
(a) Facts: A husband and wife filed joint tax returns for 2007 and 2008. The IRS assessed deficiencies. The wife petitioned the Tax Court for innocent spouse relief, and the husband intervened, asking the court to deny the request. The court asked for briefs, and the husband failed to file one, but the court addressed the issues nevertheless. Continue reading →
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)
(a) Two years ago, it appeared that the United States would be divided for some years between states that recognize same-sex marriage, and states that do not recognize same- sex marriage. Continue reading →
Porter v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-141, 2015 WL 4638622 (2015)
(a) Facts: A husband and wife were divorced in Florida. The decree awarded the wife custody of the parties’ three children. It allowed the wife to claim the exemptions for the oldest and youngest children, but allowed the husband to claim the exemption for the middle child. The decree was signed only by the court. Continue reading →
Henricks v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2014-192, 2014 WL 4723148 (2014)
(a) Facts: A Florida divorce decree awarded custody of two children to the wife. It allowed the wife to claim one child as a dependent for tax purposes, and allowed the husband to claim the other child as a dependent for tax purposes. Both parties were ordered to fill out forms necessary to transfer the exemption. But the wife did not actually fill out and sign and forms, and the wife did not sign the court’s judgment.
The husband claimed the dependency exemption for the second child, as the decree clearly permitted. The IRS disallowed the dependency exemption and assessed a deficiency. Continue reading →
McBride v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-6, 2015 WL 393011 (2015)
(a) Facts: The taxpayer, his grown son and daughter, and his daughter’s child all lived in the same household. On her federal tax return, the daughter claimed an exemption for her child. On his federal tax return, the taxpayer claimed dependency exemptions for the son, the daughter, and her child. The IRS disallowed all three of the taxpayer’s exemption, and assessed a deficiency. Continue reading →
VanderKam v. VanderKam, 776 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(a) Facts: Before the parties were divorced, the wife was the death beneficiary of the husband’s retirement plan. The parties were divorced in Texas. Their divorce decree was silent on survivor benefits, but awarded the husband all rights existing because of his employment. Continue reading →
Yale-New Haven v. Nicholls, 788 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2015)
(a) Facts: A husband and wife were divorced in Connecticut in 2008. The divorce decree incorporated a settlement agreement, which provided that the husband would transfer to the wife half of the marital share of his retirement benefits. No QDRO was entered to enforce this language, and the husband did not make the required transfer to the wife. Continue reading →
North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog