- 13 -
would have meant that they, by contract, would have had the
benefits of joint filing and income splitting, features not added
to the Federal income tax until 1948. See Revenue Act of 1948,
ch. 168, 62 Stat. 115.
Respondent’s reliance on Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930),
is misplaced. In that case, the Supreme Court decided how the
assignment of income doctrine applies to a contract between
husband and wife but did not discuss how the assignment of income
doctrine applies to community property.9 That issue was decided
in Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), in which, as stated
above, under community property law in the State of Washington,
each spouse was taxed on one-half of his or her own income and
one-half of the income of the other spouse. In Poe v. Seaborn,
the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished Lucas v. Earl on grounds
that the earnings of a taxpayer in a community property State
were the property of the community and not of the taxpayer
providing services to earn income. Because the nonemployee
spouse was entitled to the payments at issue here under community
9 The taxpayers in Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930),
lived in California. In 1920-21, spouses in California did not
have a vested present interest in all property of the community.
Community Property--Income and Estate Taxes, 32 Op. Att’y Gen.
435, 456 (1921); Donworth, “Federal Taxation of Community
Incomes–-The Recent History of Pending Questions”, 4 Wash. L.
Rev. 145, 148 n.40 (1929). In Lucas v. Earl, the Supreme Court
analyzed the issue based on contract law, not community property
law.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011