Never legally married!

[LdiJ]

There are some potentially serious IRS issues here. Even for the first wife.

If she has children it makes no sense at all that she would file as "married filing separately" because it seriously hurts her tax-wise and she is legally entitled (per the tax code) to file as unmarried. If there are no children then she still could be facing some tax consequences (being required to itemize without sufficient expenses to do so if her "husband" itemizes)....while STILL having some basis under the tax code to file as unmarried.

It gets even more complicated for the "husband" and the second wife if there are children and they are filing a joint return.

Of course, those complications are irrelevant if the IRS chooses not to pursue anything....which is possible.

It gets even MORE complicated if the first wife is fraudulently filing a joint return...but hopefully she wouldn't be that "mental"...although its been done.

 

[seniorjudge]

It gets even MORE complicated if the first wife is fraudulently filing a joint return...but hopefully she wouldn't be that "mental"...although its been done.

The first wife is not fraudulently joint returns...she's married to the guy AND she does not run yellow lights!

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Overruled, you idiot! Where did you go to law school?

Oh, wait a minute.

I'm sorry...thought I was IMing the defense counsel.

Never mind.

Judgy,
Concentrate, you can chew gum, cyber and preside over court, just watch out if the gum has Ginsing in it, that will distract you everytime.

 

[LdiJ]

The first wife is not fraudulently joint returns...she's married to the guy AND she does not run yellow lights!

LOL....I didn't either... ..at least THAT time.

Seriously though Rmet....the tax issues here are different than what you might understand. Legally married vs married for tax purposes is not the same thing. I know that sounds odd in the overall legal scheme of things but there are very distinct differences.

No, the first wife isn't doing anything fraudulent and I didn't suggest that she was. The point I was making is that her actions don't make sense tax wise....even from a legal perspective. (particularly if children are involved) Its quite possible that she is seriously hurting herself tax-wise, when tax law does not only does not require her to do so, but specifically states that she is entitled to do things differently.

The IRS or the tax coursts won't punish her for anything that she is doing....but she may very well be punishing herself financially.

The husband and the second wife are not actually committing any fraud either within the Tax Code. Basically, if you lived apart for the last six months of the tax year....you are unmarried for tax purposes....with all kinds of provisos dictated by case law etc....plus the tax code recognizes common law marriages in ways that are completely different from state law. (Remember the Tax Code is federal....and reserved for the feds, federal) Just like someone can be unmarried for tax purposes they can be married for tax purposes as well.

However yes...whether or not the IRS would consider them married for tax purposes matters...and life could get quite complicated while that gets figured out....which is why I made the point that the situation could have quite serious tax ramifications.....however whether or not they are legally married is different than whether or not they would be considered as married for tax purposes.

Please notice....I didn't get involved in the discussion on their LEGAL status....only on the tax side of things....and please notice that I have been general rather than specific.....specifically because of ALL THOSE PROVISOS dictated by case law.

If you think that family law is complicated.....you should do a major research project on just one tax law issue. ARG.

This case is one that would make most tax professionals run and hide....me included. Unless it was certain that the taxpayer could pay for serious research...and even THEN....most tax professionals would be leary about taking a position in tax court.

Yet...at the same time I could see the IRS completely blowing this one off..in order NOT to take a position on an issue that could come back to haunt them later.

I could give you dozens of examples of Tax Code issues that competely contradict the law in all other ways....Illegal immigration being a prime example. However I would have to write a book to do so.

 

[1roper4me]

Re: Crystaltoo

Hey,
I m gald we have a place we can come to for help arent you? Ill be searching else were...Some of the posters above me must live in glass houses w/ no back yard to look take care of.
I do hope you find what youre looking for, its probably not going to be on this site.

SEARCHING ELSEWERE

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Hey,
I m gald we have a place we can come to for help arent you? Ill be searching else were...Some of the posters above me must live in glass houses w/ no back yard to look take care of.
I do hope you find what youre looking for, its probably not going to be on this site.

SEARCHING ELSEWERE

Wether or not you like it, OP has received the correct advice on how to resolve this complex issue. If you had a better attitude I would help you also, but you came here ignorant of the law and you think you know it all now. Just today another poster solved a similar problem and is very happy. OP's husband needs to get a divorce and to do that he has to go through the process, I didn't make the law, but he has to follow it to get a divorce. Right now he is a bigamist who has been caught by the IRS, it will get worse until he starts abiding by the law.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

LOL....I didn't either... ..at least THAT time.

Seriously though Rmet....the tax issues here are different than what you might understand. Legally married vs married for tax purposes is not the same thing. I know that sounds odd in the overall legal scheme of things but there are very distinct differences.

No, the first wife isn't doing anything fraudulent and I didn't suggest that she was. The point I was making is that her actions don't make sense tax wise....even from a legal perspective. (particularly if children are involved) Its quite possible that she is seriously hurting herself tax-wise, when tax law does not only does not require her to do so, but specifically states that she is entitled to do things differently.

The IRS or the tax coursts won't punish her for anything that she is doing....but she may very well be punishing herself financially.

The husband and the second wife are not actually committing any fraud either within the Tax Code. Basically, if you lived apart for the last six months of the tax year....you are unmarried for tax purposes....with all kinds of provisos dictated by case law etc....plus the tax code recognizes common law marriages in ways that are completely different from state law. (Remember the Tax Code is federal....and reserved for the feds, federal) Just like someone can be unmarried for tax purposes they can be married for tax purposes as well.

However yes...whether or not the IRS would consider them married for tax purposes matters...and life could get quite complicated while that gets figured out....which is why I made the point that the situation could have quite serious tax ramifications.....however whether or not they are legally married is different than whether or not they would be considered as married for tax purposes.

Please notice....I didn't get involved in the discussion on their LEGAL status....only on the tax side of things....and please notice that I have been general rather than specific.....specifically because of ALL THOSE PROVISOS dictated by case law.

If you think that family law is complicated.....you should do a major research project on just one tax law issue. ARG.

This case is one that would make most tax professionals run and hide....me included. Unless it was certain that the taxpayer could pay for serious research...and even THEN....most tax professionals would be leary about taking a position in tax court.

Yet...at the same time I could see the IRS completely blowing this one off..in order NOT to take a position on an issue that could come back to haunt them later.

I could give you dozens of examples of Tax Code issues that competely contradict the law in all other ways....Illegal immigration being a prime example. However I would have to write a book to do so.

Laura,
OP is accusing her "husband's" wife of Tax fraud, there is no fraud, it doesn't matter the best way to file taxes, she is entitled to file married because she is married. He cannot file married/joint with OP because he is not married to her. It doesn't matter that IRS recognizes common-law marriages, that only applies in states that recognize them, California does not recognize common-law marriage and neither State or Federal recognize bigamy. The IRS will go after OP's bigamist husband and as I stated, she can claim innocent spouse. The issue of children was not addressed or mentioned so that is not relevant.

 

[ENASNI]

Me too

I am outta here.. I thought this forum was for hugs and warm fuzzies... and its just about rude people who don't give me the answers I want..

Oh wait a minute... I forgot to look around... I thought I was on a different forum...( foodnetwork.com)

I will stay here... I LIKE it here...


They told me there were Calories in Cheescake... bunch of rude liars... as if

 

[LdiJ]

Laura,
OP is accusing her "husband's" wife of Tax fraud, there is no fraud, it doesn't matter the best way to file taxes, she is entitled to file married because she is married. He cannot file married/joint with OP because he is not married to her. It doesn't matter that IRS recognizes common-law marriages, that only applies in states that recognize them, California does not recognize common-law marriage and neither State or Federal recognize bigamy. The IRS will go after OP's bigamist husband and as I stated, she can claim innocent spouse. The issue of children was not addressed or mentioned so that is not relevant.

Rmet...the OP didn't accuse the first wife of committing tax fraud. She asked about tax implications. Unless you are a tax attorney or tax accountant you really shouldn't be making "pronouncements" on this issue. I tried to explain it to you and you didn't listen....so lets try it again...more bluntly.

Whether or not a state recognizes someone as legally married generally has NO RELEVANCE for tax purposes. Only the Tax Code rules in that instance. For tax purposes the US Tax Code rules...state law does not. The Tax Code generally mirrors most state's laws regarding marriage...but there are some very specific exceptions.

I have been making my living for the last 15 years based on knowing the Tax Code....AND the relevant case law....You have not.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I am outta here.. I thought this forum was for hugs and warm fuzzies... and its just about rude people who don't give me the answers I want..

Oh wait a minute... I forgot to look around... I thought I was on a different forum...( foodnetwork.com)

I will stay here... I LIKE it here...


They told me there were Calories in Cheescake... bunch of rude liars... as if

Insofar as calories in Cheescake, it depends, not to be confused with adult diapers, The calories count when sitting or lounging, gravity offsets cheescake calories while standing. Broken cookies and crumbs lose most of their calories through caloric leakage. Cookie dough ice cream calories don't count either because, it's dough and not baked, same for licking the spoon or bowl......
I'm looking for a class action lawsuit for misadvertizing "fat free" ice cream, sour cream, whipping cream, 1/2 & 1/2, cream cheese, how can it be CREAM and be "Fat-Free"? There otta be a law.

 

[LdiJ]

The first wife is not fraudulently joint returns...she's married to the guy AND she does not run yellow lights!

LOL...but it would be fraud if she is filing JOINT.....because a joint return would require his signature and his approval.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

LOL...but it would be fraud if she is filing JOINT.....because a joint return would require his signature and his approval.

It was never set forth that she, legal wife, was filing JOINT only "Married", "Now she is filing married to him on her tax return. She refuses to accept this fact and will not provide any documentation to contradict the information. " OP is more concerned about attacking the legal wife who has done nothing wrong than to follow the law, apparently OP and bigamist husband both believe that they are above the law and it doesn't apply to them: "The only benefit the "ex" gets for filing married on her taxes or anywhere else is her emotional denial of the lack of the marriage. There is no monatary gain for either party, only complication. (THIS IS FALSE) "As no one seems to picked up on, my concern is with the IRS not whether my marriage is valid or not. I am comfortable and have done additional legal work I haven't mentioned just in case something is ever contested." Being comfortable does not mean anything is legal.

"...there is no marriage UNLESS she manages to dig up the unrecorded documents and file them. The attorney said the original clerk that allegdly married them has to make it right. (THIS IS ALSO FALSE AND IS CORRECTED BY FILING NUNC PRO TUNC PETITION THEN DIVORCE, PROBLEM IS BIGAMIST HUSBAND DOESN'T REMEMBER WHEN HE WAS MARRIED ALTHOUGH HE ACKNOWLEDGES GOING TO THE COURTHOUSE AND GETTING MARRIED, LEGAL WIFE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO FILE ANYTHING.) "My husband and his previous ..non...wife went to the courthouse 15 years ago and performed the legal function required by California to marry." As SeniorJudge pointed out the issuance of a marriage certificate is not required, so again, legal wife has done nothing wrong. "The law seems to make issuance of marriage certificate permissive instead of mandatory: 424. At the request of, and for, either party to a marriage, the person solemnizing the marriage shall issue a marriage certificate showing the facts specified in Section 422. OP even acknowledges no MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE is required but confuses it with MARRIAGE LICENSE which may have been issued in another county, also 15 + years ago, different statutes applied and no license was required if couples stipulated thay had lived together."However, 350 reads "Marriage License required" and "a license was a mandatory requirement for a valid marriage in California. The Family Code specifically provided that the term "shall" indicated that the required action was mandatory(Fam C squiggily 6,12)" and goes on in 425 to say "If no record of the solemnization of a marriage previously contracted is known to exist, the parties may purchase a license and certificate of marriage..." I admit that isn't clear whether it refers to the original party purchasing a license or another party purchasing a license."

My issue is with the IRS. My ex states "that's her problem". But from my experiece, the government has a problem. (NO, SHE AND HER BIGAMIST HUSBAND HAVE A PROBLEM)"

OP and Bigamist husband got caught when they filed Married/joint because they are not married. You were the one to say that legal wife, "There are some potentially serious IRS issues here. Even for the first wife." and went on re children, there are no children mentioned, nor of legal wife filing joint, please get your facts straight before you go on about your experience.

 

[seniorjudge]

It was never set forth that she, legal wife, was filing JOINT only "Married",

that was my mistake

 

[LdiJ]

OP and Bigamist husband got caught when they filed Married/joint because they are not married. You were the one to say that legal wife, "There are some potentially serious IRS issues here. Even for the first wife." and went on re children, there are no children mentioned, nor of legal wife filing joint, please get your facts straight before you go on about your experience.

You need to go back and review the thread. The IRS has not "caught" anything yet. The second wife is concerned about whether or not this will be an issue with the IRS, hence her questions, and hence my comments, which reflect tax issues only. I have expressed no opinion on the legal aspect of things nor do I intend to. I am expressing an opinion on the tax aspect of things.

Obviously I cannot convince you that federal tax law and state law are two different animals.

However I will point out that tax cases are heard in federal court....not state court.

 

[Happy Trails]

LOL...but it would be fraud if she is filing JOINT.....because a joint return would require his signature and his approval.

I didn't see where the first wife was filing married/JOINT, that was only mentioned the first time in your post (with the words if). Since the OP hasn't told us the exact status of how she is filing (other than she is claiming to be married); we shouldn't presume she is doing anything fraudulent (and I understand you used the word 'if').

Ldij, what would you suggest the OP do? You state "There are some potentially serious IRS issues here. Even for the first wife."

What course of action should the OP be taking?

In my opinion, she needs to be seeking the dissolution of the first marriage (which I think we all would agree that is what she was initially trying to do).

Then she doesn't have to give a crap how the (then) ex-wife would be filing. Because if the IRS does check into this, at least the OP will have all her ducks in a row.