- 13 -
act by [which evidence of the judicial act is] recorded." Parker
v. Parker, 319 A.2d 750, 751 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974);
see also Mahonchak v. Mahonchak, supra at 1208 ("It is well
settled that the oral pronouncement of a judgment in open court
on the record constitutes the jural act and that the entry of the
written judgment is merely a ministerial memorialization
thereof").
The evidence establishes that in court on December 21, 1992,
the divorce court judge orally pronounced petitioner and his wife
divorced. Under the law of New Jersey, such a pronouncement is
sufficient to render a divorce judgment effective nunc pro tunc.
We conclude that, for Federal income tax purposes, petitioner was
divorced from his wife as of December 21, 1992, qualifying
petitioner to file his 1992 Federal income tax return as a single
taxpayer. Mahonchak v. Mahonchak, supra at 1208-1209.
1991 -- AMT
The AMT was established to prevent high income taxpayers
from using large amounts of deductions and credits to reduce
their taxable income to a lower tax bracket than that of
taxpayers who have more modest taxable income. 1 Mertens, Law of
Federal Income Taxation, sec. 2A.01, at 1 (1990). The AMT
applies to the extent that taxpayers' tentative minimum tax
exceeds the taxpayers' regular income tax. Sec. 55(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011