Douglas L. Hadsell - Page 14




                                         - 14 -                                          

          close of the taxable year.  See secs. 6013(d)(1)(A), 7703(a)(1).               
               Though petitioner contends that he is entitled to claim                   
          married, filing jointly status for the 1990 taxable year based on              
          at least one of his marriages, he has also argued that his second              
          marriage, which took place in China on November 11, 1990, was not              
          legitimate.  Petitioner stated that he married Zong Yan Yu on                  
          November 11, 1990, but conceded that he was not sure that the                  
          marriage was valid because his divorce from Yu Fang Wang did not               
          become final until November 12, 1990.  In addition, petitioner                 
          stated in his original petition, filed with this Court on January              
          29, 1993:  “Lai Fong Lee’s family bribed the marriage officer for              
          a fake marriage [between petitioner and Zong Yan Yu] which was                 
          against the laws of China.”  Petitioner also testified as follows              
          at the trial on January 30, 1998:  “I have a decree now that says              
          we [petitioner and Zong Yan Yu] were never married”.                           
               In any event, section 6013(a)(1) provides that no joint                   
          return shall be made if either spouse at any time during the                   
          taxable year is a nonresident alien.  According to petitioner’s                
          testimony, Zong Yan Yu did not reside in the United States during              
          the 1990 taxable year.  In addition, petitioner conceded that                  
          Zong Yan Yu did not execute a joint income tax return for the                  
          1990 taxable year.  Therefore, based on the record, we hold that               
          petitioner is not entitled to claim married, filing jointly                    







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