- 4 -
their wages violates the Sixteenth Amendment. We shall not
painstakingly address petitioners' assertions "with somber
reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might
suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain
v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination that these
amounts are income.
We must next decide whether this income is community
property income.2 Under Washington law, with certain exceptions,
all property (including compensation earned by a spouse) acquired
after marriage is presumed community property and treated as
acquired or earned by each spouse. See Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
secs. 26.16.010 through 26.16.030 (West 1997); Zielasko v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-177. Community property income is
attributable 50 percent to each spouse. See Poe v. Seaborn, 282
U.S. 101 (1930). The parties presented no evidence demonstrating
that the compensation and interest earned by petitioners are not
community property. Therefore, we conclude that under Washington
2 Respondent, in separate notices of deficiency sent to Mr.
Bohnet and Mrs. Bohnet, determined that Mr. Bohnet is taxable on
100 percent of the compensation and interest he received and Mrs.
Bohnet is taxable on 100 percent of the compensation and interest
she received. Respondent, however, did not determine that 50
percent of the income earned by each petitioner is taxable income
to the nonearning spouse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011