§770

The codified doctrine does not apply here, pursuant to its effective date.

As is made clear by the House Ways and Means Committee report accompanying the enactment of section 770l(b)(l)(A)(i) and (6), “an alien who comes to the United States so infrequently that, on scrutiny, he or she is no longer legally entitled to permanent resident status, but who has not officially lost or abandoned that status, will be a resident for tax purposes.” H.R.

. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190, 196-197 (1971); sec. 1.66-1(a), Income Tax Regs. (effective July 10, 2003). Under the laws ofCalifornia, property acquired by a married person is generally communityproperty. Cal. Fam. Code sec. 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 exceptio

ent are now “the size of the vehicle, whether such vehicle is subject to the licensing, safety, and other requirements applicable to highway vehicles, and whether such vehicle can transport a load at a sustained speed of at least 25 miles per hour,” sec. 770l(a)(48)(A)(iii); and • the ability of a vehicle to “transport a greater load off the public highway than such vehicle is permitted to transport over the public highway” is immaterial, sec. 7701(a)(48)(A)(iii). None of the differences between

770 (West 2004), and that married taxpayers may by written agreement transmut e community property to the separate property of either spouse, with or without consideration,16 Cal . Fam. Code sec . 850 (West 2004) . Petitioner argues the residence he shared with Mrs . Ranuio is her separate property because he transmuted the property to her in

management and control. Bassett, California Community Property Law, sec. 1:18 (2005 ed.). The parties agree that the Mar. 11, 1998, $2,485.97 payment in the form of levy was made from petitioner’s “separate property”, as defined in Cal. Family Code sec. 770(a) (West 2004). The exact day was illegible. --- CONCURRENCE --- Thornton, J., concurring: I agree with the majority opinion and write to append additional views in support of it. “[D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state law”.