Mark Bole <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote:

- quote -

Susan and I celebrate several anniversary days - the day
on we were legally married, the next day when we had a
second ceremony for family and friends, the first morning
when she failed to call the police, the day I conned her
into believing my registering in a hotel in New Orleans as
husband & wife created a common-law marriage, and many more.

After all these years, I still believe in love.

Dick

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

...> > > > > > I suppose this is a bit like the guy who embezzles $1 million, and
- quote -

You ORIGNINALLY stated in this thread that if the guy is not criminally
prosecuted, he is free to make the deduction.

THEN you said "courts GENERALLY ruled . . .". That is a change from your
original comment in this thread.

You did say some of the case law allowed the deduction based on other than
1341. However, no details or cases cited.

I then provided a case which stated that even without a criminal
prosecution, a Claim of Right can be denied, and thus the deduction, under
1341.

So, maybe you are not agreeing with me. I gave you the benefit of the
doubt. But your origninal comment in this thread is wrong, i.e. that as long
as you are not criminally prosecuted you can take the deduction.

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

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote in message
news:3FRCk.50916$Mh5.44017[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

No, I'm not agreeing with you. I stated that there are OTHER WAYS THAN
section 1341 to allow an embezzler a deduction for repayments.

- quote -

Which doesn't address the alternatives.

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

Mark Bole <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote:

- quote -

I did quite a bit of research on this a couple of years ago. I
represented a guy in California who cohabited with a woman for 30 years
but they never married. He did have relatives in Texas, and they
visited there on occasion, telling people they were married. They had
at times talked about wanting to get married, though they never got
around to it.

My conclusion based on research was that was sufficient to establish
what they call in Texas an informal marriage (it's now statutory
there).

- quote -

I'd think they'd have to establish the date to the satisfaction of a
court or the relevant authorities.

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

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:gbf1tp$49u$1[at]snarked.org...
- quote -


ok, now you are agreeing with me and changing your comment from your initial
post in this thread.

I cannot find Parks case on the web, but from its recitation in other cases
and documents it appears Parks was "sitting on a beach, free as a bird" and
yet lost out on his attempt to deduct his repayments.

Office of Chief Counsel
Internal Revenue Service
Memorandum


Number: 200808019

Release Date: 2/22/2008

... . . Although most "claim of wrong" cases have involved obtaining income
through criminal wrongdoing, the exception is not limited to criminal cases.
In Parks v. United States, 945 F.Supp. 865 (W.D. Pa. 1996), the taxpayers
sought section 1341 tax treatment for amounts they paid to settle civil
fraud allegations. There was no judgment establishing that the taxpayers
committed fraud. However, the court did not view the settlement in the civil
action as precluding the government from proving fraud as a bar to the
application of section 1341 in a federal tax proceeding. The court concluded
that any income obtained through intentional wrongdoing failed to qualify
for the tax benefits of section 1341 . . .

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

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote in message
news:vnsCk.49551$Mh5.33165[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

And as I previously stated, when last I checked on this in 1992, the courts
generally ruled that an embezzler, civilly prosecuted only, does get to
deduct his repayments. Now, I acknowledge that there have been several CoR
cases which have tightened the CoR standard, but some of the prior
[embezzlement] case law did not base the deduction on section 1341.

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

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:gbbrsa$le1$1[at]snarked.org...
- quote -

actually, based on a recent thread here, I don't think it is true that as
long as he is not criminally prosecuted, he gets to take the deduction. The
test is whether he obtained the money as a claim of right.

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

- quote -

Generally (varies by state), the couple has to have legal capacity to
marry, communicate intent to marry to each other, co-habit, and present
themselves publicly as married.

Current CLM states: Alabama Colorado District of Columbia Iowa Kansas
Montana Oklahoma Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah. Some states
used to allow CLM, but no longer do, such as Pennsylvania up until 2005.
I was surprised how many states do or until recently did, a pretty
large percent of the total population. Stu, are you sure about Texas
requirements? My research source claims in Texas a statement must
actually be signed by both parties.

I wonder on what date do people in CLM's celebrate their wedding
anniversary? Or, when does the clock start for purposes of determining
Soc. Sec. benefits in the case of an ex-spouse who was married for at
least ten years?

An estimated tax payment is not a signed return, I suppose that filing
one or more such payments jointly (both SSNs and names on the 1040-ES
form) prior to Dec 31st is not fraudulent and helps meet the
requirements. Having the estimated payment come out of a joint checking
account probably helps too.

-Mark Bole

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

"Stuart Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B229FC3A338Eavocatstuyahoofr[at]130.133.1.4...
- quote -

Actually, no. Since he's sitting in jail, he gets no deduction for
embezzled funds returned. The deduction is denied where there's a criminal
prosecution.

Now, if he was caught, paid back the money, and is sitting on some beach
somewhere (free as a bird), then I agree.

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

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

But fraudulently signing a 2007 return as MFJ in 2008 can cause the
CLM to exist as of 2008.

I suppose this is a bit like the guy who embezzles $1 million, and he
caught and the money recovered the following year. He has taxable
income in the year of the theft, and a deduction for the following
year when he's sitting in jail not earning any money.

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

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:gb9hk2$j2e$1[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

No, but signing a 2007 return as MFJ could create the CLM in 2008. ;-)

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

Phil Marti <prm20871[at]verizon.net> wrote:
- quote -

To rephrase Phil's answer: It's impossible for a legally-filed
tax return to "back-date" a common law marriage into the prior
year. You either had a CLM in 2007 or you didn't. You can't
create a 2007 CLM in 2008.

Dick

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

John D. Goulden wrote:
- quote -

told you that filing a joint return does not create a marriage.
Filing a joint return while domiciled in a CLM state "may" be one
factor that is used under state law to determine if a CLM exists.

There are numerous websites available that explain which states
have CLM and the criteria for making the determination. Just
search on the phrase "common law marriage" AND state law.

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

"John D. Goulden" wrote:

- quote -

That does help. Unfortunately, the answer lies in state marriage law, not
tax law.

In order to legally file a joint return they must have been married as of
the prior December 31. Thus it's impossible for a legally-filed tax return
to "create" a common law marriage.

Your state law question, if you want to stick with your premise that a prior
common law marriage didn't exist, is "Does a fraudulent joint Federal tax
return create a common law marriage?"

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

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

"John D. Goulden" <jgoulden[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gb6qkp02ccm[at]news7.newsguy.com...
- quote -

I don't think your rephrase of the question changes the issue or the
answers.

Simple answer: If they hold themselves out as married, they are married. I
consider signing any document as if married as holding out as married, but I
don't practice in a CLM state.

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

I didn't phrase my question well before, so I'll try again. If a cohabiting,
unmarried couple in a common-law-marriage state files MFJ, does that create
a common-law marriage if none existed before?

Thanks again

--
John D. Goulden

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