Case of First Impression: Community Property Law & Refunds

Stuart Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

> Alan <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> 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/newo...EF655C41770882
> > 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

> 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/newo...EF655C41770882
> 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

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

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/E8432EF655C417708825748F007CDF30/$file/0674539.pdf

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >