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.
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.
The national picture, state by state.
This list and descriptions of current same-sex marriage litigation was compiled by Liberty Counsel. It is accurate through July 9, 2004.
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 Goodridge 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 Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in November 2003 was not a complete surprise. Goodridge was 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.
The near future may bring fundamental changes to patent practice in the United States. On Sept. 26, 2003, the Federal Circuit ordered, sua sponte, the en banc consideration of the Eastern District of Virginia's decision in Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp, 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.
The Victoria's Secret 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 Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (hereinafter "Victoria's Secret"). 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.
Given the expense and burden of resolving false advertising cases in federal court, the promise of an expedient and less expensive alternate forum invites attention. Adding to speed and thrift an assurance that ads will be assessed by experts in the field makes the forum more interesting still. What is this alluring avenue of adjudication? For 33 years, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (NAD) has sought to provide just such a mechanism. Yet, even for long-time veterans of federal proceedings, the NAD may be terra incognita. One recent decision by the NAD, In re Distillerie Stock USA Ltd., NAD Case No. 4197 (June 2004), reveals both benefits and drawbacks of the forum, particularly in how some familiar yet some unique allocations of the burdens of proof can produce results both similar to and quite unlike those in federal court.
