- 20 -
Mr. Ordlock had been personally liable to a nongovernment
creditor, the community assets would have been a potential source
of payment to that creditor.
The question is whether Congress intended to place the
Commissioner at a disadvantage concerning liabilities such as Mr.
Ordlock’s. As we have stated, we see no evidence of such
congressional intent, nor do we see petitioner’s position as
advantageous to tax administration given the problems discussed
previously. The nature of a marital community in California is
to generally allow the individual debts of the spouses to be
collected out of community assets. Cal. Fam. Code sec. 910 (West
2004); McIntyre v. United States, supra; Babb v. Schmidt, 496
F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1974); Weinberg v. Weinberg, 432 P.2d 709,
713-714 (Cal. 1967); Grolemund v. Cafferata, 111 P.2d 641 (Cal.
1941).6 The policies behind the law can be debated, but a
decision not to disrupt this rule for tax liabilities is sound.
A marital community can involve many sources of income, many
assets, and many expenses. How these expenses are paid, how the
income is handled, and how assets are acquired are all choices of
the spouses.7 Attempts to undo these choices and determine the
6The California Supreme Court in Grolemund v. Cafferata,
111 P.2d 641 (Cal. 1941), expressly distinguished California’s
community property law from the “community debt” and “separate
debt” positions of Washington and Arizona.
7Community property rights are equal regardless of which
spouse acquires the property. The following describes the nature
(continued...)
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011