§760

Respondent contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review respondent’s determination made pursuant to section 66(c) and that, unlike section 6015, section 66(c) does not provide for a “stand alone” proceeding whereby an individual can petition the Tax Court in response to a determination. Discussion All property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in California, is community property. Cal. Fam. Code sec. 760 (West 1994).

760 (West 1994). Under a community property regime, each spouse is entitled to file a separate Federal income tax return. If separate returns are filed, then generally each spouse must report half of the community income, and each spouse is liable for Federal income taxes on that share. United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190, 196-197 (1971);

Code § 760 (West, Westlaw through 2024 Reg. Sess. ch. 1002). The community property character of Mr. Anderson’s 9 [*9] income thus turns on whether he, not Ms. Jaha, was domiciled in California during the years at issue. The place of an individual’s domicile is primarily a question of fact. Niki v. United States, 484 F.2d 95, 95 (9th Cir. 1973) (per cu

760 (West 2004); see also hL sec. 770 (defining separate property ofa married person); Hanfv. Summers (In re Summers), 332 F.3d 1240, 1242-1243 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting the general presumption that property acquired during the marriage is marital property and identifying exceptions). However, the married couple can by agreement have communitypr

760 (West 2004) . This means that spouses in California are generally liable for each other's debts, even if incurred before the marriage. Cal. Fam. Code sec. 910 (a) (West 2004) ; In Re Soderling, 998 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1993) . Because Churchill was married at the time of the CDP hearing, the Appeals officer was right to consider Schwarz

760 (West 2004). P seeks a refund pursuant to sec. 6015(g), I.R.C., of the payments R applied to H’s understatements made with her separate property and with the community property. R does not dispute that P may be entitled to a refund for - 2 - the payment made from her separate property unless sec. 6511, I.R.C., applies. Held: P is not enti

760 (West 2004), unless otherwise indicated. All of the payments for the years in issue are shown in the appendix hereto. The Ordlocks remained married at the time the payments on these tax liabilities were made. Although the parties agree that one payment was from separate property and the rest from community property, no effort has been made

760 (West 2004). Under California law, there is a rebuttable presumption that all property acquired during marriage is community property. Hanf v. Summers, 332 F.3d 1240, 1242-1243 (9th Cir. 2003); Haines v. Haines, 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 673, 681 (Ct. App. 1995). It follows that there is a rebuttable presumption that all income derived during the m

Community property income is attributable 50 percent to each spouse. See Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930). Petitioners have failed to produce any evidence that the income they earned (i.e., the money paid to Republic) was not community property income. We conclude that under California law this income must be allocated 50 p

760 (West 1994). - 8 - 81 T.C. 644, 647 (1983); Freedson v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 333, 334-336 (1975), affd. on other grounds 565 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1978). Respondent contends that she is entitled to a decision under Rule 121 as a matter of law. The Court may grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, a