Lee v. C. I. R.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | 76-1192,Nos. 76-1191,s. 76-1191 |
| Citation | 550 F.2d 1201 |
| Parties | 77-1 USTC P 9349 Harold K. LEE and Louise Geise, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles A. Lane, Schwartz & Lane, San Francisco, Cal., on brief, for appellants.
Meade Whitaker, Chief Counsel, I.R.S., Washington, D. C., Scott Crampton, Gilbert E. Andrews, Elmer J. Kelsey, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief, for appellee.
On Appeal from the Decisions of the United States Tax Court.
Before CHOY and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, District Judge. *
The taxpayers appeal from a decision of the tax court, reported at 64 T.C. 552 (1975), holding that they were not entitled to file joint returns for the years 1967-70. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482.
The sole issue on appeal is whether marital status for federal tax purposes is to be determined by state or federal law. In 1961 Harold K. Lee (Harold) married Doris G. Lee (Doris) and in 1966 the husband divorced the wife in a Mexican proceeding which all parties now agree was invalid. In 1967 Harold married Louise Geise (Louise) in Las Vegas, Nevada and Harold and Louise filed joint income tax returns for the years 1967-70. One month after marrying Louise, Harold filed for divorce against Doris in California. Doris cross-filed and was eventually given an Interlocutory Decree by default which became final in July 1971. Neither party to the California divorce action raised the question of the prior Mexican divorce. At all times relevant to this action, Harold, Doris and Louise were residents of California.
It is undisputed that during the taxable years involved, Harold and Louise were not validly married under the law of California. That state refuses to recognize a foreign jurisdiction's divorce decree when the parties are domiciled in California. California Civil Code § 5001 (West 1970). In re Atherley's Estate, 44 Cal.App.3d 758, 119 Cal.Rptr. 41 (1975); Sohnlein v. Winchell, 230 Cal.App.2d 508, 41 Cal.Rptr. 145 (1964).
This circuit has held that state law should be used to determine marital status for federal tax purposes. Gersten v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 267 F.2d 195 (9th Cir. 1959). Appellants urge that we review and abandon the Gersten holding in view of later Second Circuit cases which held that a federal rule of validation should apply. Borax' Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 349 F.2d 666 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 935, 86 S.Ct. 1064, 15 L.Ed.2d 852 (1966); Wondsel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 350 F.2d 339 (2d Cir. 1965). We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...419 U.S. 393, 404 (1975); see also Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-735 (1878); Lee v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 552 (1975), affd. 550 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1977). With regard to the provisions for filing a joint return or filing as an unmarried individual, it has been held that State law is de......
- Potter v. Rain Brook Feed Co., Inc.
-
Goeller v. United States
...in which necessity requires incorporation of state law. See Lee v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 64 T.C. 552, 556 (1975), aff'd, 550 F.2d 1201, 1202 (9th Cir. 1977) (marital status); O'Neill v. United States, 410 F.2d 888, 896-99 (6th Cir. 1969) (corporate existence). 19. See United States v.......
-
Frome v. Comm'r (In re Estate of Grossman)
...349 F.2d 666, 676 (2d Cir. 1965) (Friendly, J., dissenting); see also Lee v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 552, 557-558 (1975), aff'd, 550 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1977). The parties most keenly interested in the status of Semone and Ziona's marriage--Semone, Ziona, and Hilda--did not challenge the marr......
-
Table of Cases
...6.5(14) Langs Estate v.Commr, 97 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1938): 7.3(20) Lantz v. Commr,607 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2010): 7.2(16) Lee v. Commr,550 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1977): 7.2(3) Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986): 8.2 Loose v. UnitedStates, 74 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1934): 7.2(32) Mantle, In re......
-
§7.2 Federal Income Taxation
...privilege of filing joint tax returns because the husbands prior Mexican divorce decree was invalid under California law. Lee v. Commr, 550 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1977). That being so, they were not validly married. The Ninth Circuit held that state law will always be used to determine marital......