ILNews

Court splits on first impression dissipation case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented today from his colleagues' decision that a spouse may be found to have dissipated property after refusing to sign and file joint tax returns because the judge believes the ruling is "bad law and bad policy."

In Anna Mae Hardebeck v. James A. Hardebeck, No. 48A04-0904-CV-212, Judges Edward Najam and Michael Barnes adopted the holding that whether a spouse's failure to file a joint tax return constitutes dissipation under Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-5(4) must be determined from a review of the facts and circumstances in each case. The majority relied on caselaw from Pennsylvania and Tennessee since it was the first time the issue had been addressed in Indiana courts.

The dissolution court ruled Anna Mae Hardebeck dissipated marital assets when she refused to file a joint income tax return for 2006 and 2007 with her husband, James. That cost James more than $8,600 in state and federal income taxes. James filed for dissolution in 2008.

"As in any case involving an allegation of dissipation, the court should consider relevant factors including whether the expenditure benefited the marriage or was made for a purpose entirely unrelated to the marriage, the timing of the transaction, whether the expenditure was excessive or de minimis, and whether the dissipating party intended to hide, deplete, or divert the marital asset," wrote Judge Najam.

The majority noted Anna Mae never suggested she filed her tax returns separately to protect herself because James' returns were fraudulent, and she apparently refused to file their taxes jointly out of spite.

But Anna Mae was within her statutory rights in refusing to file a joint tax return, Judge James Kirsch wrote in his dissent, and she may have been acting with great prudence in doing so.

"I believe that requiring a spouse to execute a joint income tax return in such circumstances and to incur the joint and several liability that accompanies filing such a return, including any deficiencies resulting from it, any penalties assessed because of it and any additional tax liability subsequently imposed on it is bad law and bad policy," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT