1confidencegames
1lafayette
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
1defense
Richard Posner 360x1000
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
6confidencegames
storyparadox2
9albion
13albion
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
2confidencegames
2falsewitness
4confidencegames
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
Maria Popova 360x1000
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
8albion'
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
2albion
1lauber
1lookingforthegoodwar
George F Wil...360x1000
11632
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
3paradise
2trap
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
6albion
1trap
7albion
2theleastofus
2defense
storyparadox3
3theleastofus
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
299
199
14albion
Storyparadox1
3confidencegames
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
1gucci
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
2jesusandjohnwayne
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
2lafayette
5confidencegames
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
399
5albion
4albion
7confidencegames
2lookingforthegoodwar
12albion
LillianFaderman
11albion
1albion
1madoff
Betty Friedan 360x1000
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
Tad Friend 360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch2
499
2transadentilist
1empireofpain
Gilgamesh 360x1000
1jesusandjohnwayne
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
2paradise
Learned Hand 360x1000
1paradide
1theleasofus
Edmund Burke 360x1000
1falsewitness
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
3defense
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
1transcendentalist
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
10abion
lifeinmiddlemarch1
2gucci
3albion
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000

Originally published on Passive Activities and Other Oxymorons on January 3rd, 2011.
____________________________________________________________________________
CCA 201050029

I’m doing this one as a bonus post.  I have written several times on the perils of filing joint returns.  I have long been of the opinion that divorcing spouse in particular should reflect on the perils of joint and several liability rather than just looking at the relative tax amounts.  Several months ago I made a logical extension of that advice.  In my post on the Laura Brady case, I recommended that a spouse who has decided not to sign a joint return should file a separate return, even if not otherwise required to file.  This is because a non-signing spouse can be deemed to have consented to a joint return.

CCA 201050029 illustrates the dilemmas that can be created by not paying attention.  The Chief Counsel has to ponder whether someone should be informed about the contents of a joint return that he or she has denied signing.  Seem like it would be nice to know how much your ex is trying to hang you with.  I’ve read the thing a couple of times and am still not sure what the answer is.  Better to avoid the situation entirely.
From: ————————— Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:31 AM To: ——————— Cc:


Subject: Your Inquiry


As a starting point, sections 6103(e)(1)(B) and 6103(e)(7) authorize the disclosure of a joint return, and return information relating thereto, to either of the “individuals with respect to whom the return is filed.” Your question concerns whether that authority remains viable when one such individual claims not to have signed the purported joint return. I believe it does; because there has been no final determination as to the spouse’s tax liability stemming from the purported joint return, the spouse remains an “individual with respect to whom the return is filed.”


But there may be other authority as well. You can look to section 6103(h)(4). (Note that there is some overlap between the authorities in sections 6103(e) and (h) with respect to a taxpayer’s ability to access his or her own information.) Section 6103(h)(4) establishes disclosure authority in “administrative and judicial proceedings pertaining to tax administration,” which include examinations and Appeals consideration. Subsections (A), (B), and (C) set forth the relevant authority for disclosure of return and return information to a taxpayer, either where that taxpayer is a “party to the proceeding” or the “proceeding arose out of, or in connection with, determining the taxpayer’s liability” , or where either of the third party tests apply. As noted above, because there has been no final determination as to the spouse’s tax liability stemming from the purported joint return, it strikes me that the spouse remains a party to the matter that is before Appeals. Alternatively, depending on the particular facts, one or more of these other subparts may apply