- 11 -
failure of Phyllis Alpern to file a valid petition in the divorce
proceeding.
As stated above, this Court is a court of limited
jurisdiction. Petitioner seeks a remedy, to set aside the
Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage, which cannot be properly
addressed in this forum. Particularly in the area of family law,
we must rely on the premise that “‘the whole subject of the
domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs
to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the United
States’”. Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383
(1930) (quoting Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 594 (1890)).
Therefore, we have long recognized that marital status for tax
purposes generally is governed by local law. See Lee v.
Commissioner, 64 T.C. 552 (1975), affd. per curiam 550 F.2d 1201
(9th Cir. 1977). Consequently, we decline to disregard the
divorce judgment or treat it as a nullity.
In this case, petitioner merely alleges that the divorce was
not final and has introduced no evidence to support that
allegation. We find that petitioner and Phyllis Alpern were
divorced as of August 10, 1992, and that petitioner was unmarried
during the year in issue. Petitioner’s correct filing status for
1996 is single. Respondent is sustained on this issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011