- 3 -
deductions were accompanied by a notation that the amounts
represented one-half of the community property total amount.
Dr. Geaccone is a dentist. Petitioner, in her 2001 Federal
income tax return, did not include in gross income any amount
attributable to Dr. Geaccone’s earnings or profits from his dental
practice. Respondent determined that the combined earnings of
petitioner and Dr. Geaccone for the first 8 months of 2001 (the
portion of the tax year 2001 that petitioner and Dr. Geaccone were
not separated) was $320,986.67. According to respondent,
petitioner should have included (as items of community income)
half of that amount in income, as well as $55,154.33, the portion
of petitioner’s annual salary earned after her separation from Dr.
Geaccone.1 Respondent did not disturb petitioner’s treatment of
the claimed itemized deductions (i.e., her claiming half of the
community property total amount). However, respondent determined
that of the $38,354 withholding credit petitioner claimed, eight-
twelfths, or $25,569.33 (corresponding to the portion of the year
that petitioner was not separated from Dr. Geaccone) should have
been allocated evenly between petitioner and Dr. Geaccone, and
four-twelfths, or $12,784.67 (corresponding to the portion of the
year that petitioner was separated from Dr. Geaccone) should have
been allocated to petitioner. Therefore, according to respondent,
1Respondent allocated 50 percent of interest income and
dividends to petitioner, as the total amounts were small ($13 and
$19, respectively).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007