Gerald Dennis Strong - Page 29




                                       - 29 -                                         
          joint tax return.  We conclude that both petitioner and Mary                
          intended that the tax return filed on October 16, 1995, be their            
          joint 1994 tax return.                                                      
               Respondent states on brief several contrary considerations,            
          none of which causes us to change our conclusion.                           
               (1) “Petitioner’s spouse filed a separate return for the               
          year 1994, using married, filing separately filing status.”                 
          Firstly, respondent does not suggest that Mary’s separate tax               
          return, filed in 1998, constitutes a valid revocation of a timely           
          filed joint tax return.  See Ladden v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 530,           
          533-534 (1962); sec. 1.6013-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.  The                  
          relevance, then, is the light, if any, that Mary’s 1998 filing              
          shines on Mary’s intentions when the joint tax return was filed,            
          on October 16, 1995.  We conclude that the circumstances had                
          changed so drastically in August 1997 that Mary’s later actions             
          serve primarily to underscore the significance of her essentially           
          unbroken pattern of assent that continued through October 16,               
          1995, and even past that date.  Secondly, we give greater weight            
          to the fact that, until 1998, Mary did not file a separate tax              
          return even though she had more than $20,000 of Form W-2 income             
          and had an income tax liability in excess of her withholding.               
               (2)  “At the time the 1994 tax return was filed, there were            
          severe marital problems present in the relationship between                 
          petitioner and his wife.  In fact, petitioner and his spouse were           






Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011