Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Most experienced and highly respected matrimonial lawyers will agree that the single most important ingredient to bring any case to a successful conclusion is credibility. But, simple as it sounds, credibility is not achieved overnight. For a lawyer, it takes years of honest candor to develop. For a client, it is simply being fair and honest. It is what makes a weak case strong, and the lack of it makes a strong case weak.
Generally, spouses are jointly and severally liable for the tax, interest, and penalties on a joint return. This is so even if they have their own written agreement in which one spouse assumes liability. However, one spouse may be entitled to relief on innocent spouse rules (Code Sec. 6015). Recent court decisions help to clarify certain innocent spouse relief issues. In general, courts have been taxpayer-friendly.
Features
In May 1998, when Luke Weinstein got divorced, his stock in the small computer company, Product Technologies Inc. (PTI), was only worth $40,000 -- according to his financial affidavit for his divorce settlement. Five months later, his stock in the company that pioneered "smart card" technology, was purchased for $1,449,000 -- 36 times the value his financial expert calculated. In an effort to get what she considers her fair share of this windfall, his wife, Nancy, sued to open the divorce settlement on grounds of fraud.
Features
This list and descriptions of current same-sex marriage litigation was compiled by Liberty Counsel. It is accurate through July 9, 2004.
Features
July 14 marked the first salvo in what is anticipated to be a long and contentious battle about whether the U.S. Congress should expand its influence over the definition of marriage in the United States. Spurred by the <i>Goodridge</i> decision, conservative members of Congress introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment to provide additional support for the definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman. The most prominent of these efforts has so far yielded the most high-profile defeat for traditional marriage advocates: a 50-48 loss on a procedural measure related to the Federal Marriage Amendment (SJR 30).
Although the average American might feel that same-sex marriages in Massachusetts materialized overnight, activists who have worked on the issue say that the <i>Goodridge</i> decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in November 2003 was not a complete surprise. <i>Goodridge was</i> the result of a well-planned, long-term strategy by same-sex marriage proponents to bring the issue into the legal, cultural, and political mainstream.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
The near future may bring fundamental changes to patent practice in the United States. On Sept. 26, 2003, the Federal Circuit ordered, <i>sua sponte,</i> the <i>en banc</i> consideration of the Eastern District of Virginia's decision in <i>Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp,</i> 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In its order, the court sought answers to questions that analyze its current precedent that authorizes the trier of fact to impose an adverse inference of willful patent infringement where accused infringers invoke the attorney-client privilege. On Feb. 5, 2004, the Federal Circuit heard arguments in the appeal. A decision is pending.
Features
The <i>Victoria's Secret</i> case raised the hurdle for plaintiffs claiming dilution under the Lanham Act, generally making it much harder to prevail in a federal dilution action. The Supreme Court followed the plain meaning of the statute in interpreting the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) [Sec. 43(c) of the Lanham Act] to require a showing of "actual dilution" in <i>Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.,</i> 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (hereinafter "<i>Victoria's Secret</i>"). The Supreme Court got to this position in part by contrasting 43(c) with the language of state dilution laws, which in many cases do not require actual dilution (and recognize tarnishment, besides). Some state laws can, in theory, help plaintiffs with a dilution claim. This article examines how this is actually playing out.