Pereboom v. Pereboom

The husband appeals a dissolution judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in classifying his accounting practice as a marital asset, and in requiring him to pay a portion of the parties’ income tax for 2005 as a non-marital debt. We reverse on both issues.

When the parties married in 1995 the husband had his own incorporated CPA practice, and the testimony of the husband, which was undisputed, was that the practice had not increased during the marriage. The size of the practice, includ*1206ing the number of employees, amounts of accounts receivable, and liabilities had remained essentially the…