- 10 -
outstanding tax liability. See sec. 6501(c)(3). This is not a
“whipsaw” situation for respondent.
2. Petitioner’s Marital Status
Respondent alleges in the alternative, that petitioner was
Mr. Fullen’s common law wife and, as such, is liable for income
tax on one-half of Mr. Fullen’s income. Under such
circumstances, petitioner’s proper filing status would be married
filing separate instead of single. See sec. 1(d).
The three elements of a common law marriage in Texas are:
(1) The couple agreed to be married; (2) after the agreement,
they lived together as husband and wife; and, (3) they
represented to others that they are married. See Tex. Fam. Code
Ann. sec. 2.401(a) (Vernon 1998); Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d
929, 932 (Tex. 1993). All three elements must coexist to
establish a valid common law marriage. Winfield v. Renfro, 821
S.W.2d 640, 645 (Tex. App. 1991).
While they did reside together during 1998, petitioner and
Mr. Fullen have never been married to each other. Petitioner
testified that she never gave anyone the impression she was
married to Mr. Fullen. The Court finds her testimony credible.
The Court holds petitioner was not married to Mr. Fullen during
1998. The Court holds further that petitioner’s correct filing
status for taxable year 1998 is single.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011