Opinion ID: 2271826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Individual Tax Returns

Text: The couple filed a joint tax return for 1995. They incurred a tax liability for that year because Andrew did not withhold sufficient money from his income to satisfy the amount that they owed in taxes. In 1996 and 1997, Dorothy filed her tax returns individually. [6] Dorothy testified that she chose to do so because Andrew again failed to withhold sufficient funds and she couldn't really rely on some numbers. As a result of their filing individually and not jointly, Dorothy received a refund and Andrew incurred a substantial tax liability. Andrew argues that the trial justice should have found that Dorothy's refunds and Andrew's liabilities were marital assets that were subject to equitable distribution. He maintains that the trial justice should have assigned to him an amount representing an equal share of Dorothy's refunds and to her an equal share of his liability. Dorothy argues that the trial justice correctly refused to alter the equitable distribution award to compensate Andrew for his tax penalties because her findings were supported by the evidence and were not clearly wrong. We agree with Dorothy and do not disturb the trial justice's ruling. The trial justice acknowledged that Dorothy's decision to file separately from Andrew for two years caused him to owe significant amounts to the IRS. Further, she noted that the parties' joint properties were sold to pay down a business debt to Citizens Bank, only to have those monies levied by the IRS to pay [Andrew's] overdue taxes which were overdue, in no small measure, due to [Dorothy] filing separately for two significant tax years, '96 and '97. However, the trial justice considered these facts when she ruled that Dorothy would be responsible for half of the Citizens Bank loan. This Court will not disturb the trial justice's assignment of property unless her decision clearly was wrong. Schwab, 944 A.2d at 158. In our view, the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive the relevant evidence about the reasons for and impact of Dorothy's filing her taxes singly for two years, and thus her findings of fact are entitled to great weight. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial justice was clearly wrong when she determined that the impact of the parties' individual tax filings was appropriately addressed through her assignment of partial responsibility to Dorothy for the Citizens Bank loan. 3