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

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