Wissing v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner had no knowledge of, or benefit from, funds embezzled by her husband. She signed joint tax returns with him which failed to include such funds in income. Held, on remand, that the nondisclosure to petitioner by her husband of the receipt of such funds did not require a finding that petitioner did not voluntarily sign the returns and she is accordingly liable for the conceded deficiencies in income tax under sec. 6013(d)(3), I.R.C. 1954.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Initially, we note that the opinion above appears to suggest that funds embezzled by one spouse should not be regarded as income of the other spouse. See 416 F. 2d at 481. But, considering the opinion as a whole, and particularly the fact that the case was remanded to us for further action, we do not regard this to be the law of the case. Moreover, we are constrained to observe that section 6013 (d) (3), I.B.C. 1954, provides that “if a joint return is made, the tax shall be commuted on the aggregate income and tlie liability with, respect to the tax shall be joint and several.”…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Federbush v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
- Rodney v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Vannaman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Davenport v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
- Vaughn C. Payne and Edith Pruitt Payne v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1957
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Estate of Klein v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Joss v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- Betty Bell Wissing v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971
- Anderson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Colella v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.