- 8 -
1103 (9th Cir. 1978); Powers v. Fox, 158 Cal. Rptr. 92, 95 (Ct.
App. 1979); Interinsurance Exch. of the Auto. Club v. Velji, 118
Cal. Rptr. 596, 600 (Ct. App. 1975).
In the present case, petitioner filed her petition for an
annulment of a voidable marriage only 2 months prior to the trial
of this case. Up until that time, she held herself out as being
married. We do not think that petitioner's current attempt to
claim that she was single during 1989, as a result of the
Judgment of Nullity, promotes the purposes for which the
relation-back doctrine was intended. Accordingly, we hold that
the Judgment of Nullity in the present case does not relate back
to the date of the marriage and, therefore, is not binding on the
Commissioner for purposes of petitioner's Federal income tax
filing status.3
Understatement of Gross Receipts
Petitioner determined her Schedule C gross receipts based
upon deposits into her business bank account. Respondent
increased petitioner's gross receipts by $14,658 in the notice of
deficiency. Petitioner concedes she understated her gross
3Respondent also argues that petitioner's securing of an
uncontested annulment constituted a "sham transaction" designed
to manipulate her marital status for Federal tax purposes and,
thus, should not be given effect. Respondent points to the
timing of the petition for nullity of marriage, which was shortly
after respondent informed petitioner by letter that she intended
to raise petitioner's marital status as an issue, as support for
this contention. However, as a result of our holding, we see no
reason to look behind the State court's judgment.
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