- 13 -
$34,288 and (2) the items of income reported on Mr. Bennett’s
return totaling $57,138. Unless petitioner can rebut the
presumption under California law that these items are community
property, the Bennetts’ total community income for 1998 was
$91,426, and petitioner’s one-half share of community income was
$45,713, as follows:
Item of Community Income Total Amount Petitioner’s Share
Petitioner’s “wages” $31,385 $15,692.50
Petitioner’s interest 723 361.50
Petitioner’s IRA 2,180 1,090.00
Total (petitioner) 34,288 17,144.00
Husband’s wages 40,054 20,027.00
Husband’s interest 4,834 2,417.00
Husband’s other income 12,250 6,125.00
Total (husband) 57,138 28,569.00
Petitioner’s share $45,713.00
of community income
There is no evidence in the record to rebut the presumption
that any of the items of income listed above were community
property. While petitioner contends that she did not work for
Premium Fresh Juice in 1998 and that she should not owe taxes on
any portion of the $31,385 in wages, she does not dispute that
paychecks were issued in her name and deposited into joint bank
accounts over which she had signatory authority. As a result,
legal title to the purported wages passed to the Bennetts in
1998, and they are properly included in the Bennetts’ community
income for 1998.8
8 There is no evidence in the record that Premium Fresh
(continued...)
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011