- 11 -
the time. Cf. Rutana v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1329, 1334 (1987);
DeVenney v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 927, 930 (1985).
Generally, when respondent presents evidence which, if
credited by the Court, is sufficient to support a decision in
respondent's favor, there will be a reasonable basis for
respondent's position. See Wilfong v. United States, 991 F.2d
359, 369 (7th Cir. 1993).
The taxpayer has the burden of establishing that
respondent's position was unreasonable. Rule 232(e).
A. Head of Household Filing Status, Child Care Credits, and
Inclusion in Petitioner's Income of One-Half of Sharer
Accountancy's Income
Petitioner's entitlement to claim head of household filing
status and child care credits turned on whether she and her
husband, in fact, maintained separate households during 1986 and
1987. Similarly, whether petitioner had to include one-half of
the income from Sharer Accountancy in her income for 1986 and
1987, turned on whether she and her husband were living "separate
and apart". Under the community property laws of California,
income earned by Mr. Sharer during 1986 and 1987, while he and
petitioner were married, generally would be community income of
Mr. Sharer and petitioner. However, if Mr. Sharer and petitioner
were living separate and apart, with no intention of resuming
marital relations, Mr. Sharer's earnings would be his separate
property, rather than community income. See discussion in Sharer
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-453.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011