- 8 -
subject to California community property law.6 Respondent's
determinations are presumed correct, and petitioners bear the
burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Durando v.
United States, 70 F.3d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1995).
For Federal income tax purposes, to determine what
constitutes an individual's income in a community property
jurisdiction, we must look "to the law of the State as to the
ownership of community property and of community income." United
States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190, 195 (1971); Morgan v.
Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 79 (1940). It is well established
that domicile, rather than mere place of temporary residence,
controls the application of community property law. Whitmore v.
Commissioner, 25 T.C. 293 (1955); In re Allshouse's Estate, 13
Cal. 2d 691 (1939). Furthermore, the law of the State in which
the earner of income is domiciled is the appropriate law to be
utilized in determining whether such income is community
property. Kamikido v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-402; see
Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78 (1940).
6 The trial memorandum submitted by petitioners to this Court
asserts that both petitioner and Carolyn Webb were not residents
of California for part of the years in issue, and therefore are
not subject to California community property law. However, this
contention with respect to petitioner is actually prejudicial to
his interest. If California community property law does not
apply to petitioner, then he would be liable for tax on 100
percent of his income; 50 percent would not be attributable to
Carolyn Webb.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011