Court Opinion

ID: 9765379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:01:27.402956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:09.446053
License: Public Domain

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Appellant-husband induced the appellee-wife to file a joint tax return rather than separate tax returns for 1979. Appellant alone, without professional help, prepared *255the return. Appellee later learned that the joint tax liability calculated by appellant exceeded the amount withheld by $16,224.00. A factfinder could conclude that she agreed to share tax liability to this extent and agreed to the sale of some stock to pay this shortfall. However, under no circumstances should we conclude that she shares responsibility for the additional assessment, originally $12,126.00, now more than $26,000.00. This liability arose from appellant’s failure to properly treat the gains realized from his exercise of certain stock options which he controlled and his stubborn refusal since notification of that additional assessment to meet his obligation to the Internal Revenue Service. Merely because appellee agreed to share a $16,224.00 tax liability does not mean that she would have acquiesced to a greater sum. Indeed, knowledge of the facts which produced this additional liability might have influenced her to file separately and thus avoid any responsibility for the tax deficiencies. Any amounts owed the Internal Revenue Service are traceable to appellant’s manipulation of his tax liability and marital assets, as are any unclarities in the record. I would not offer him the chance to profit from that manipulation.