- 4 -
Order), the Court entered a decree for dissolution of
petitioner's and Ms. Petrie's marriage. The Final Orders awarded
petitioner the family residence, and granted Ms. Petrie the right
to remain in the family residence until August 1992. Ms. Petrie
was awarded the Arizona rental property subject to the
outstanding mortgages.
The Final Orders made reference to petitioner's AT&T
retirement income as follows:
The Court finds that the Husband is the recipient of a
pension from AT&T which was accumulated during the
course of the marriage and is, therefore, marital
property subject to division by this Court. From the
evidence, the Court has determined that both parties
have made substantial contributions during the course
of the marriage, and that it would be inequitable to
not grant the Wife any interest in the proceeds of this
pension. From the testimony, the court finds the
present amount being paid under the pension is
$1,849.87 per month. It is ordered that the parties
shall divide equally the income from the pension
commencing March 1, 1992. [Emphasis added.]
Ms. Petrie and the three dependent children moved from the
family residence to the Arizona rental property in March 1992.3
At that time, petitioner took possession of the family residence.
After regaining possession of the family residence, petitioner
first timely filed a 1991 joint Federal return and in May 1992
filed an unsigned 1990 joint Federal return.4
3 Ms. Petrie and the dependent children moved from the family
residence in March 1992 although the Final Orders provided for them to remain
in the family residence until August 1992.
4 Subsequent to the filing of the 1990 joint Federal return,
petitioner signed a declaration, under the penalties of perjury, that he
examined the 1990 joint Federal return and to the best of his knowledge and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011