- 24 -
OPINION
As in many cases in which we sort out the tax consequences
to former spouses of the property settlement attending the
dissolution of their marriage, respondent is largely a
stakeholder. But although the cases have been consolidated, and
properly so, the benefits of consolidation could prove to be
transitory and ephemeral. Barring stipulations to the contrary,
the consolidated cases will be appealable in different circuits
because the former spouses had changed residence by the times
they filed their petitions. Even though New Jersey equitable
distribution orders can only be modified under exceptional and
compelling circumstances, Torwich v. Torwich, 660 A.2d 1214, 1216
(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995), there could be further
litigation to decide how the tax liabilities we determine in
these cases will be finally allocated between Alice Berger and
the Estate of Howard Berger. Cf. In re Hargrave, 43 Cal. Rptr.
2d 474 (Ct. App. 1995); Hill v. Richards, 667 A.2d 695 (N.J.
1995). Although "[W]e are not called upon to determine the
ultimate responsibility for such tax" as between Alice Berger and
the Estate of Howard Berger, Yonadi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-602, revd. and remanded on other grounds 21 F.3d 1292 (3d
Cir. 1994), the past, current, and possible future expenditures
of judicial and party resources would have been substantially
reduced if the parties had followed our suggestions that they
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011