Tax Update Blog: Permalink

« Previous · Tax Update Blog Home · Next »

FIJI IN HASTE, REPENT AT LEISURE

March 01, 2004

It's a mistake anybody could make.

"Plaintiffs L. Thorne McCarty and Mary Lynne Robertson claim they are entitled to a tax refund of approximately $5000 because they filed an income tax return in 1997 on which they 'mistakenly' represented themselves as a married couple. Plaintiffs now contend that they were not 'legally married.' As a consequence, they claim they are entitled to file amended income tax returns as non-married individuals."

Of course, under the circumstances, it was an understandable mistake.

"Plaintiffs participated in a marriage ceremony in Fiji on June 20, 1997. Though they now claim that the ceremony was 'symbolic,' and that their 'intention was to adopt the form of marriage, while negating the substance,' they appear to have taken steps consistent with a legally cognizable marriage, such as filing a Certificate of Marriage in Fiji, rather than (for instance) having a private ceremony without the benefit of official sanctions"

Mr. and... Mrs? McCarty apparently decided they were mistaken when they realized their tax as married taxpayers filing joint returns was about $5,000 higher than it would have been had they filed as single taxpayers sinfully cohabitating. The filed a refund claim to undo their mistake, but the IRS said they were right the first time, and they were married. A U.S. District Court in New Jersey sided with the IRS (sorry, no link available).

It's a bad sign for you when the judge has this to say about your case:

"Plaintiffs engage in a complex and protracted analysis of cases which might be analogous if their marriage were indeed void, as well as an interesting, diligently researched, and totally irrelevant exploration of inapplicable precedents for determining when a marriage is void due to mistake. "

The couple also left an inconvenient paper trail:

"Further undermining their post-hoc pronouncements that they intended the ceremony to be 'symbolic' are the indications in the record that the parties clearly knew that they were getting married, even going so far as to craft an explicit 'Antenuptial Agreement,' in which they described themselves as 'husband' and 'wife,' and their prospective relationship as 'marriage.'"

So the unhappily-married couple is down about $5,000 in cash; still, they have the inestimable benefit of being honorably wed, with the word of both the Governor-General of Fiji and the U.S. District Court for New Jersey to prove it.

      Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit