- 10 -
legally entitled. Her right to do so provided her with the
opportunity to exercise sufficient control over her share of the
proceeds so as to consider those proceeds received by her.
“[I]ncome is received or realized when it is made subject to the
will and control of the taxpayer and can be, except for his own
action or inaction, reduced to actual possession.” Loose v.
United States, 74 F.2d 147, 150 (8th Cir. 1934).
Under Florida law and as expressly noted by the divorce
court, petitioner, as a joint owner of the townhouse, was
entitled to one-half of the income attributable to the property.
In those instances where each spouse has an equal right to the
income from the jointly held property, the usual rule is that
one-half of the income from the property is properly taxable to
each spouse. See Urbauer v. Commissioner, supra; Rosen v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-40; Rosenbaum v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-287, affd. per order (7th Cir., July 28, 1993); Finney
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1976-329. The usual rule applies
even to those situations, such as here, where one spouse does not
actually receive any of the income attributable to the jointly
held property.
Petitioner authorized the sale of the townhouse. The record
contains no details of the settlement documents that petitioner
signed and returned to the settlement agent. Nevertheless, in
the absence of anything in the record that suggests otherwise, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011