and in many cases it depends on which party the judge is more favorable toand which party did you watch disfavors.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Original Message------
Wadlow was decided in 1985; Burszstyn was decided in 2005. Both are published decisions. What I took from both cases is that, while a Court has the authority to require parties to file joint taxes under the appropriate circumstances, it is within the discretion of the Court to make that determination based upon the facts of the case. If one party suffers as a result of the other refusing to file joint taxes, the Court can and should require adjustments be made as to distributions between the parties as a result thereof.
Bottom line, as with all other family cases, it depends upon your facts as to whether a Court will require the parties to file jointly.
------------------------------
Nancy Marchioni Esq.
Middlesex NJ
(732)667-3668
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-04-2015 17:38
From: Robert Goldstein
Subject: Requiring joint tax filing?
Here is the relevant language from Wadlow:
"We need not address that question here. We merely note in passing that the problem has not received uniform treatment in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 464 A.2d 780 (Sup.Ct. 1983); Leftwich v. Leftwich, 442 A.2d 139 (D.C.App. 1982); In re Marriage of Butler, 346 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984); Frasse v. Frasse, 315 N.W.2d 271 (N.D.Sup.Ct. 1982). Assuming that the Chancery Division had the authority to order the parties to file a joint return, we discern no sound basis compelling that course within the context of the facts of this case. Under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.A. § 6013(a)) a husband and wife may file "a single return jointly of income taxes." A joint return treats the married couple as a single taxable unit. Taft v. Helvering, 311 U.S. 195, 198, 61 S.Ct. 244, 246, 85 L.Ed. 122, 124 (1940); United States v. Allen, 551 F.2d 208, 210-211 (8 Cir.1977). Although such an election may result in substantial tax savings, see Parker v. United States, 524 F.2d 479, 481 (5 Cir.1975), and Estate of Upshaw v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 416 F.2d 737, 742 (7 Cir.1969), cert. den. 397 U.S. 962, 90 S.Ct. 993, 25 L.Ed.2d 254 (1970), the right cannot fairly be said to be inconsequential. Its exercise may have potential civil or even criminal ramifications. We note that "[m]arried individuals filing a joint return expose themselves to joint and several liability for any fraudulent or erroneous aspect" of the contents. Leftwich v. Leftwich, supra at 145. A spouse may be held liable on a joint return even though he or she never signed it. Kann v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 210 F.2d 247 (3 Cir.1953), cert. den. 347 U.S. 967, 74 S.Ct. 778, 98 L.Ed. 1109 (1954). Although an indemnification agreement may serve to resolve many of these problems, we can well understand the trial judge's reluctance to order the parties to file a joint return. Given defendant's substantial 380*380 interest in the choice of a filing status and the corresponding consequences, we find that it was not error for the court to deny plaintiff's application.
What has been said thus far does not mean that the trial judge was obliged to ignore the tax ramifications of his decisions. To the contrary, when determining an equitable division of property the court is free to consider the financial consequences of one party's refusal to file a joint return and grant an appropriate credit. See Leftwich v. Leftwich, supra at 146; In re Marriage of Butler, supra at 47. In light of the potential problems to which we have alluded, that would appear to be the far wiser course in this case."
------------------------------
Robert Goldstein Esq.
Manalapan NJ
(732)972-1600
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-04-2015 17:25
From: Bonnie Reiss
Subject: Requiring joint tax filing?
It's Wadlow, I think
Sent from my iPhone