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