伍德拉夫家庭法律组织

揭开今天的mg摆脱游戏免费试玩税收问题第四部分

12. Welwood v. 通讯或, T.C. 备忘录. 2019‑113, 2019 WL 4187568 (2019)

(a)事实:丈夫和妻子于1973年结婚. They separated in Florida 2003 和 signed an agreement dividing their property.

在协议中, the husb和 conveyed to the wife a 50% interest in certain real estate partnerships. The partnerships were designed to generate tax savings in early years. 1986年的税法修改限制了被动损失与其他收入的抵扣,这使得合伙企业在晚年的吸引力大大降低.

In 2010, the husb和 suffered a series of strokes that left him significantly disabled. 直到2017年去世,他一直生活在一系列的护理设施中. 双方从未mg摆脱游戏免费试玩.

The parties filed accurate joint tax returns from 2008 until 2015, but they paid only the tax due in 2009; significant amounts remained outst和ing for the other years.

In 2015, 双方签署了另一份婚姻财产协议,将房地产合伙关系转移给丈夫.

美国国内税务局对未缴税款展开征收程序, 和 the wife filed a petition for discretionary innocent spouse relief. 妻子声称受到虐待,但国税局不相信她. “妻子声称受到了虐待, 但她也说丈夫没有剥桔子皮的认知能力.“2019 WL 4187568, *8. The IRS denied relief, 和 the wife sought review in the Tax Court.

(b) Issue: Was the wife entitled to discretionary innocent spouse relief?

(c)问题回答:否.

(d)理由摘要:IRS认为,由于2015年将房地产合伙关系转移回丈夫是欺诈行为,因此没有满足其中一个门槛条件. The court disagreed 和 found that the threshold requirements were met. "We see no intent to hide the transfers in this case or other indicia of fraud." Id. at *15.

第一个安全港条件要求双方mg摆脱游戏免费试玩或合法分居. The wife argued that the parties had been separated for well over a year, 所以这个要求在功能上得到了满足. 法院暗示这一要求可能得不到满足. “呈请人照顾其丈夫的行为(尽管多年来被指控虐待), 支付家庭账单, 而承担照顾他的经济负担表明,她认为自己是这个家庭的一员,一直嫁给他,直到他去世." Id. at *16-17. 也, as discussed below, the wife had reason to know that the taxes would not be paid. 因此,安全港条件没有得到满足.

The result therefore turned upon the discretionary relief factors. 法院同意国税局的观点,认为这位妻子对自己经济状况的评估是有问题的,她的支出比收入多出不到300美元. 因此,她没有面临经济困难.

Further, the wife had reason to know that the husb和 would not pay the taxes due. The wife argued that this knowledge was irrelevant because she had been abused, 但法院认为她的说法不可信,甚至连她丈夫中风前的纳税年度也不可信:

[The wife] testified that she was fearful because her husb和 had guns, 但她特别描述的唯一一件事发生在2015年或2016年,当时他在一家护理和康复护理机构. 事件期间M. 威尔伍德说他想要一把枪以便自杀. 没有证据表明他用枪威胁请愿者,也没有证据表明他当时有机会得到枪.

Id. at *21-22.

最后, 妻子知道合伙企业会产生大量的纳税义务,因为她最终在2015年将合伙企业转移了出去. 她没有试图支付任何税务责任,即使存在可以用来支付税务责任的资产.

“尽管上诉人的处境艰难而不幸, 这些情况并不令人信服,也没有理由免除共同责任." Id. at *23-24.

观察:

  1. Welwood 还有一个滥用因素被滥用的案例吗. 考虑到丈夫中风后的身体状况, 尤其是他在疗养院的事实, 他是否虐待了他的妻子是非常令人怀疑的. 甚至在中风之前, 丈夫拥有枪支而妻子害怕枪支这一事实并不表明是虐待. There was zero evidence that the husb和 took any concrete action to intimidate the wife.
  2. 2010年后,妻子负责管理派对的财务, so she had every reason to know the parties' financial condition. 她与顾问讨论了财务问题,并最终转移了负责大部分税收的房地产合伙企业. 妻子并不是那种在经济上不知情的配偶,往往会获得无辜配偶救济.
13. 罗杰斯v. 通讯或, 908 F.3d 1094(第7 Cir. 2018)

(a)事实:丈夫和妻子共同提交了2004年的纳税申报表. The IRS assessed a deficiency, 和 the parties sought review in the Tax Court. 国税局的税务法庭.

Three years later, the wife filed a petition for innocent spouse relief. 国税局拒绝了这一请求. 妻子在税务法庭寻求复审, which agreed with the IRS. 妻子向第七巡回上诉.

(b)问题:妻子是否有权获得无辜配偶救济?

(c)问题回答:否.

(d)理由摘要:“如果法院在以前任何程序中对同一纳税年度作出的决定是最终决定, 这种决定应是结论性的,除非有关个人获得[无辜配偶]救济的资格,因为在这种程序中这不是一个问题. 如果法院确定该人有意义地参与了上述先前的诉讼,则前一句中所载的例外不应适用." I.R.C. ' 6015(g)(2).

上面的语言充满了令人困惑的双重否定, but the bottom-line rule is that when married taxpayers contest a deficiency, 夫妻双方都“有意义地参与了”诉讼, the proceeding bars a later petition for innocent spouse relief. 预期在最初的程序中会提出任何关于无辜配偶救济的要求.

税务法院认为,妻子有意义地参与了质疑这一缺陷的诉讼程序,因此不能提出独立的救济请求. 特别是, the wife had an MBA 和 a law degree 和 substantial knowledge of tax law, 然而,她声称对税务问题一无所知. 在之前的税务诉讼中,妻子也有律师. The Tax Court found her testimony not credible, 和 the Seventh Circuit agreed.

这位妻子认为,结果应该有所不同,因为国税局没有告知她,她有权获得无罪配偶救济. “(妻子)没有确认任何权威机构认为,由于披露的缺点,服务处不能采取她无权获得无辜配偶救济的立场." 908 F.3 d在1097.

教训: 在税务法庭上对缺陷进行抗辩时, 在那个时候寻求无辜配偶救济是谨慎的. 如果提出申请的配偶“有意义地参与”对该缺陷提出异议,以后将无法提出此类救济申请.

很明显,在某些情况下,寻求救济的配偶根本没有参与对缺陷的质疑. 但是谨慎的步骤, 在可疑情况下, 是尽早寻求无辜配偶救济的机会吗.

观察: 拥有法学学位和MBA学位的人很难获得无罪配偶救济.

14. 阿萨德 v. 通讯或, T.C. 备忘录. 2017‑80, 2017 WL 2211215 (2017), 等于off会, 751 F. App'x 339 (3d Cir. 2018)

(a)事实:夫妻拥有出租财产. 每个配偶都负责一些财产. They filed joint tax returns in which they claimed losses on the properties.

国税局不承认这些损失,并评估了一个缺陷. 这一缺陷是在第1条的三年时效通过后断言的.R.C. § 6501(a). Neither party contested the notice of deficiency within the 90-day period set forth in I.R.C. § 6213(a).

90天之后, 双方都申请了无辜配偶救济, 他们各自的要求被合并成一个案子. 在共同申报后,但在税务法庭的诉讼程序之前,双方mg摆脱游戏免费试玩了. In their separation agreement, they agreed to divide all tax liabilities equally.

美国国税局(IRS)承认,对于另一方管理的房产,每一方都有资格获得少缴税款的减免. 但双方都希望按照分居协议的要求平分未付损失.

(b)问题:(1)当事人能否对缺陷通知提出时效抗辩? (2)应纳税义务是否平均分配?

(c)对问题的回答:两个问题都没有.

(d)理由摘要(地区法院):诉讼时效是一种积极的辩护, 只有在90天的法定期限内,才可提出对不足通知书的质疑. 由于在90天内未对该通知提出质疑,双方放弃了其限制抗辩.

“mg摆脱游戏免费试玩协议确立了阿萨德和阿克尔在州法律下相互对抗的权利.... 然而,它不能控制他们对国税局的责任.“2017 WL 2211215,在*2.

(d)理由摘要(巡回法院):上诉主要集中于第一个问题. 因为双方错过了90天的最后期限, “税务法院恰当地判定,它没有管辖权来考虑阿萨德对联邦税务责任评估提出的任何挑战的有效性, 而且它仅限于决定阿萨德是否有资格获得无辜配偶救济." 751 F. App 'x 341 - 42.

教训:

1. 国税局应该更加关注评估缺陷的三年时效.

  • 纳税人应该更加注意90天的期限,以便对缺陷通知提出异议.
  • 观察:

    1. 阿萨德 只决定谁向国税局付款. 如果双方想平均分配纳税义务, 他们仍然可以自由地要求mg摆脱游戏免费试玩法庭执行他们的协议并命令结果,或者甚至通过他们自己之间的支付来达成结果,而不需要任何法官介入.
    2. 阿萨德 造成了一定程度的司法效率低下, because there will have to be an extra action in state court to enforce the agreement. But federal judges do not h和le domestic relations cases very often, 他们对家庭法缺乏兴趣, 有时他们不太擅长应用它. 也, 在许多情况下, 州法律问题将由批准该协议或发布mg摆脱游戏免费试玩令的州法官审理. 让州法官决定国家的国内关系法律问题有强大的优势.
    15. 本森v. 通讯或, T.C. 备忘录. 2018‑157, 2018 WL 4520083 (2018), 等于off会, 774 F. App'x 339(第8轮. 2019)

    (a) Facts: Wife owned a corporation that maintained 和 collected revenue from St. 路易停车计时器. She fraudulently overbilled the city, was convicted, 和 went to prison. 在她坐牢期间,她的丈夫提出了mg摆脱游戏免费试玩.

    在2011年的联合纳税申报单上,这对夫妇正确申报了他们的收入. 但他们没有支付全部69513美元的税款.

    丈夫请求无罪配偶救济. The IRS denied the petition, 和 the husb和 appealed to the Tax Court.

    (b)问题:丈夫是否有权获得无辜配偶救济?

    (c)问题回答:否.

    (d)理由摘要:强制减免无辜配偶只适用于少报税款的情况. Here, the problem was not understatement but, rather, lack of payment.

    美国国税局同意满足了门槛条件. 丈夫的年收入为140美元,000, 哪一项足以支付应缴税款, 这样他就不会因为纳税而受苦, 并且没有满足安全港条件.

    The result therefore depended upon the discretionary relief factors. 只有一个因素支持救济——当丈夫请求救济时,双方分居了. 相比之下, three factors opposed relief: (1) the husb和 benefitted from the unpaid tax liability because his financial status was intertwined with the wife's; 和 (2) the husb和 was aware that the wife could not pay the taxes (because her conviction resulted in a total loss of income); 和 (3) the husb和 had not timely paid his 2013 和 2014 taxes. 因为因素的平衡是负的, 法院拒绝给予丈夫无罪配偶救济.

    在一份未发表的意见书中,第八巡回法院简短地确认了税务法院的决定.

    观察: 丈夫并不知道妻子的欺诈行为,但他似乎分享了这笔钱. 也, 他能偿还69美元的债务,从他每年140美元的收入中减去513美元(大概加上利息),000. 最后, 当一个寻求“无辜配偶救济”的申请者在以后几年里没有按时纳税时,它永远不会有帮助.

    16. Schorse v. 通讯或, T.C. 备忘录. 2018‑176, 2018 WL 5270556 (2018)

    (a) Facts: Husb和 was a computer programmer 和 wife was a physician. During the marriage, the wife earned 80% to 90% of the parties' income.

    2002课税年度, 2003, 和2004年, 妻子向丈夫提供了她的税务信息, 他的商业会计准备了联合纳税申报单. The wife's tax information claimed that her practice suffered losses each year. 丈夫向妻子和她的会计询问损失情况, 他被告知,妻子在医疗实践中没有充分的依据来扣除损失.

    尽管如此,这位丈夫还是让他的会计准备好报销损失的申报表. Predictably, the IRS disallowed the deductions 和 assessed deficiencies. The couple paid these deficiencies for several years, paying off their tax debt for 2002.

    两人于2012年分居,2014年mg摆脱游戏免费试玩. The divorce decree assigned all outst和ing tax liabilities to the wife.

    她的丈夫提交了一份申请,要求无罪配偶免除2003年和2004年的责任. The IRS denied the petition, 和 the husb和 sought review in the Tax Court.

    (b)问题:丈夫是否有权获得无辜配偶救济?

    (c)问题回答:否.

    (d) Summary of Rationale: To obtain m和atory innocent spouse relief, 申报的配偶必须证明他或她没有理由知道少报了税. 这位丈夫有理由知道, 因为妻子和她的会计告诉他的, 妻子经营业务的损失不能抵税.

    国税局认为,这位丈夫没有达到无罪配偶救济的门槛条件. 丈夫有理由知道漏报的税,所以没有满足安全港条件. The result therefore turned upon the discretionary relief factors.

    Factors favoring relief were (1) the husb和 had been divorced from the wife; (2) the divorce decree assigned all outst和ing tax liabilities to the wife; 和 (3) the husb和 was current on taxes from later years. Factors opposing relief were (1) the husb和 had reason to know of the tax understatement; (2) the parties had a high st和ard of living; 和 (3) the husb和 therefore benefitted from the tax underpayment.

    "Although many of the factors for equitable relief either favor petitioner or are neutral, petitioner's actual knowledge of the losses deducted on the joint returns, 他参与准备这些回报, 而他从这种轻描淡写中得到的巨大好处对他来说太不利了,不能让他放松下来.“2018 WL 5270556,在22-23.

    明显的教训:

    1. 如果你妻子的会计告诉你,她生意上的损失不能在你的纳税申报单上扣除, 你也许应该考虑接受会计师的建议.
    2. 当税务问题是你指示你的会计师不顾你妻子和她的会计师的直接相反的建议而采取的扣款时,你很难得到无辜配偶的减免.
    17. 亨利五世. 通讯或, T.C. 备忘录. 2019‑24, 2019 WL 1385242 (2019)

    (a) Facts: Husb和 和 wife married in 1997 和 divorced in 2013. 在mg摆脱游戏免费试玩案件悬而未决期间,双方提交了2012纳税年度的联合所得税申报表. 报价单上没有14美元,650 in income earned by the husb和 from his second job as a church musician.

    美国国税局(IRS)评估了一个缺陷,双方都没有对此提出异议. The IRS then seized funds from the wife's 2014 tax return to satisfy the deficiency. 妻子申请了无辜配偶救济. 国税局给予了减免,但拒绝给妻子退款. 妻子在税务法庭寻求复审.

    (b)问题:妻子是否有权获得无辜配偶救济?

    (c)对问题的回答:是的.

    (d)理由摘要:法院将妻子要求退款的请求解释为要求酌情救济无辜配偶的请求. 国税局承认,妻子有权享受这种救济, 但这位丈夫介入,反对救济.

    The husb和 did not contest that the threshold conditions were met. 因为妻子有理由知道少交了税而且也没有虐待的证据, 没有满足安全港条件.

    The result therefore turned upon the discretionary relief factors.

    Factors favoring relief were (1) the parties had been divorced; (2) the wife's only monthly income was $500 in alimony 和 $999 on Social Security disability, so she faced economic hardship; (3) the wife did not benefit from the unreported income, which husb和 spent for his own purposes; (4) the wife had complied with tax law in future years; 和 (5) the wife's health was poor. 只有一个因素反对救济——妻子在提交申报表两周后的mg摆脱游戏免费试玩案件中争辩说,丈夫在财务报表中遗漏了他的教会收入,她知道他一年前有教会收入, which suggested that she had reason to know of the omitted church income. 因为这些因素的强大优势是有利的, 法院批准酌情配偶救济.

    《揭开当今mg摆脱游戏免费试玩税收问题的面纱——第三部分》 | 附录1: