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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT