Steve, the husband, was ordered to pay child support for his two minor children until the youngest was an adult and graduated from high school, and spousal support for his wife, Carol until November 30, 1997. After child support terminated Carol moved to increase spousal support on the basis of a "change in circumstances", that is, Steve now had more funds to pay such support.
The Second District Court of Appeals held that the trial court presumably had anticipated that child support would end before spousal support when it fashioned is original order. Therefore, the termination of child support was foreseeable and not a "change in circumstances" which by itself justified a reconsideration of the amount of spousal support Carol received.
Rasco (Samuel K.) v. Commissioner
(Civ. No. 8935-98, U.S. Tax Court, 5/18/99)
Lisa and her children from a previous marriage lived with Samuel. Lisa had little income, Samuel therefore provided the majority of support for her and her children. Samuel claimed federal exemption for Lisa and one for each child on his tax return. He also claimed a head of household filing status based upon the residence of Lisa and the children.
The I. R. S. challenged Samuel's tax filing status and exemptions, and Samuel appealed to the tax court. The tax court permitted the filing status and the exemptions by the following reasoning. A dependent is normally a relative of the taxpayer who has received over one half of their support from the taxpayer during a calendar year. However, the code an exemption for each member of a taxpayer's household who reside with the taxpayer and receive over one half of their support during a calendar year. Lisa was not receiving support from the children's father and was ale to prove that the children's support and her own was primarily furnished by Samuel. The Court allowed the exemptions and the tax filing status based upon the exemptions.
Points of Law:
Reimbursement of Separate Funds
Charles and Barbara were married in 1989 and bought a home in 1990. Charles contributed $43,000 of his funds which he had earned prior to the marriage and Barbara contributed $32,000 from funds given to her by her parents during the marriage. During 1997 the couple was divorced and the residence was sold for $398,000. After paying the brokers and other costs of sale, and repaying the mortgage $129,000 remained. How are the funds divided.
The Family Law Code at section 2640 allows for reimbursement of separate property funds at time of dissolution, without interest, provided the funds are able to be traced and the funds were used to acquire a community asset, improve the asset, or pay down the obligations owed against the asset.
Charles receives his $43,000 and Barbara her $32,000. The remainder, $54,000 is divided equally between them so that each receives $27,000.
www.take2mediation.com
