Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Who Gets the Tax Refund?
Income tax refunds can involve substantial sums, and are a frequent source of disputes between divorcing spouses. Before advising a client regarding distribution of a joint tax refund, the matrimonial practitioner should review the applicable law. Federal tax law often dictates a different result from that of state equitable distribution or community property law, and the lawyer must know the difference. Liability for taxes does not necessarily confer a property interest. For example, although the parties to a joint federal income tax return are jointly and severally liable for the taxes payable for the year in question, and although the refund check is drawn to the order of the parties jointly, they do not necessarily have joint ownership rights to the tax refund.
Determining Ownership of the Refund
A refund results from an overpayment of income tax, either by withholding or by estimated tax payments for the year in question. The source of the overpayment determines ownership of the refund. U.S. v. Anthony, No. CIV 97-1772-PHX-SMM, 1999 W.L. 424884 (D. Ariz.1999). Under federal tax law, an overpayment by a married couple is owned by each spouse separately to the extent that he or she contributed to the overpayment. Rev. Rul. 74-611, 1974-2, C.B. 399. Each spouse has a separate interest in the family income as reported on a joint tax return and, consequently, a separate interest in any overpayment. Id.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.