- 18 -
Linda did not put her children through school using the
money, her only real estate was the land underneath her home
(which her mother had given her years before), she did not jet
off to exotic locales, and she made no similar outsized
purchases. The Haltoms reported a total adjusted gross income
from 1990 to 1992 of $205,000. Of the $275,000 that Jerry
contributed to the family finances from 1990 to 1992, $230,000
benefited Linda,8 only $25,000 more than the income they reported.
This is less than 15% of their adjusted gross income, and we do
not find that to be significant.
Jerry also contributed $75,000 to investment accounts that
were in his name. Since Texas is a community property state,
Linda is entitled by law to half that investment. Linda has not
yet benefited from this money, and since Jerry owes over $635,000
in restitution from the embezzlement, she most likely never will.
Thus, we find that Linda received no significant benefit from the
omitted income.
The second factor we look at is whether the failure to
report resulted from wrongdoing on the part of the nonrequesting
spouse. This factor weighs heavily in Linda's favor. It was,
after all, Jerry who embezzled the money, not Linda, and we have
8 Jerry made payments for his cars, the country club, and a
fitness club. None of these payments benefited Linda. Still
included in the $230,000 are the mortgage payoff, the
improvements on the house, the new pool, and other items that
benefited both Haltoms. See supra, note 6.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011