Cathy Miller Hardy - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          acquired during marriage is not community property.  Pryor v.               
          Pryor, 103 Nev. 148, 150, 734 P.2d 718, 719 (1987).  Income                 
          earned by either spouse during marriage generally is community              
          property, regardless which spouse earns more income or which                
          spouse supports the community.  Robison v. Robison, 100 Nev. 668,           
          670, 691 P.2d 451, 453 (1984).  Married persons may enter into a            
          written agreement to keep their respective property separate and            
          not subject to Nevada's community property law.  Nev. Rev. Stat.            
          sec. 123.220 (1993); see also Nev. Rev. Stat. sec. 123.190                  
          (1993).                                                                     
               Spouses who are domiciled in a community property State like           
          Nevada generally are required to report and pay tax on one-half             
          of their community income, United States v. Mitchell, supra at              
          196, regardless whether they actually receive that income,                  
          Furgatch v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1205, 1209 (1980).6                       
               We will sustain respondent's position with respect to                  
          petitioner's unreported income for the years at issue if:                   
          (1) Mr. Hardy has income for the years at issue; (2) the presump-           
          tion under Nevada law that that income is community income is not           

          6  We thus reject petitioner's contention that requiring peti-              
          tioner to include in her gross income for the years at issue a              
          portion of the income paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy during             
          those years raises constitutional problems because petitioner               
          never received that income.  Petitioner's contention also is                
          contrary to our finding that Mr. Hardy used at least a portion of           
          the income that was paid to him to pay at least some of the                 
          living expenses.                                                            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011