Lawrence Michael Spanier - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
          Security numbers to claim a tax benefit.1  In separate notices of           
          deficiency dated January 9, 2003, respondent disallowed the three           
          dependency exemption deductions claimed by Mr. Spanier and Ms.              
          Spanier on their respective returns.                                        
               A copy of the judgment of divorce was not offered into                 
          evidence; however, copies of several subsequent court orders were           
          offered relating to various visitation and child and spousal                
          support questions that arose after the divorce.  None of the                
          court documents addressed the dependency exemption deductions for           
          the children for Federal income tax purposes.                               
               On March 12, 2003, Mr. Spanier petitioned the superior court           
          of California requesting a determination that he is entitled to             
          claim dependency exemption deductions for the children for 1997             
          and 1998 and that Ms. Spanier be ordered to execute the necessary           
          releases.  A hearing was held on May 14, 2003, and on August 22,            
          2003, the superior court granted Mr. Spanier's petition.  The               
          superior court's order states, in pertinent part:                           
               This Nunc pro tunc order corrects the previous order,                  
               which failed to reflect the true intention of the Court                
               at the time the order was rendered.  At the time the                   
               order was rendered, it was the intent of the Court to                  
               allow the transfer of the dependency exemptions.  This                 
               order does not constitute a modification of the prior                  
               order, but rather a clarification of the same.                         

               1This letter refers only to duplication of two of the three            
          Social Security numbers assigned to petitioners' children.  No              
          explanation is given for the omission of the third Social                   
          Security number.                                                            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011