Local Decrees

[Snaggletooth]

Congratulations to the TAXBOOK for the chart on 3-16!!! If you haven't checked it out, and would like a good shake-out on children, go for it!!!

One question, though. Local judges still award dependency regardless of any of this, and IRS historically does not invade this province if a court decision has been rendered. Is this FINALLY the year we can tell them these new rules are in place irregardless of what the judge says?

I will tell you through experience that local judges most often do not have a CLUE about tax laws. At least not down here. They know more about shotgun weddings...

...and one more thing...MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

Snag

[ChEAr$]

kids, etc

I'll check out that page, Snag. there are some judges, AND lawyers, who I would love to
say "go to hell".

Speaking of shotgun marriages, last Saturday night there was a Christmas song on the radio ,
something about "....and shotgun shells on the Christmas tree.!"

I kinda liked that song, too; reminded me of that classic: "There were four more possums in
the headlights, tonight."

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

[Armando Beaujolais]

One question, though. Local judges still award dependency regardless of any of this, and IRS historically does not invade this province if a court decision has been rendered. Is this FINALLY the year we can tell them these new rules are in place irregardless of what the judge says?

Snag

I'd change the phrase "does not invade" to "ignores." The only time I've seen the IRS respect a court order for the sake of respecting it is when the code says that a divorce decree, etc., applies.

I hadn't really thought about all the divorce decrees we'll see that don't reconcile with the new tax law. But you're right. We'll be seeing them. The IRS is going to do what it always has done, do its best to stay as far away from domestic disputes as possible, but I don't believe the IRS is going to go along with a court decision that doesn't meet the code.

My favorite was the guy who was separated for a year, not divorced until after the first of the year, the ex had not much income. They were married for the tax year, no doubt about it, and for some reason the guy's new young girlfriend seemed to have an effect on the ex's spirit of cooperation. A joint return was out. The mom had custody of the child all along.

The decree "awarded" custody to the mom and head of household filing status to the dad. Sorry, dad, you can't file head of household, I don't care what the decree says, you have to file MFS. There's no stretching nothing that will turn a bachelor into a head of household. Who would you believe if you were the client? The court decree, drafted by expensive lawyers and signed off on by a judge? Or a lowly tax prep guy who's going to cost you thousands of dollars?

He left in a huff, but came back a while later. He checked it out and realized the court had it wrong. But at least he got to deduct huge legal bills for tax advice from his divorce lawyer.

[ChEAr$]

legal bills

I

(snipped)

He left in a huff, but came back a while later. He checked it out and realized the court had it wrong. But at least he got to deduct huge legal bills for tax advice from his divorce lawyer.

A deduction for legal bills for a divorce? Did the lawyer break the total bill down into it's
component parts? Only the portion of the bill pertaining to taxable income is deductible.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

[Snaggletooth]

Play It Again Sam

Cheers, read Armando again. The deduction is for "tax advice" from his divorce lawyer. Tax advice is, in fact deductible, but subject to the 2% floor.