Somerville

Somerville v. Commissioner

Good Law
123 F.2d 975·28 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 437·1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2863
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 28, 1941No. 9857California2,386 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Stephens, J.

George J. and Gertrude Martha Somerville, while husband and wife, and residents of California entered into a property settlement agreement in writing on September 1, 1936. An interlocutory judgment of divorce between them was decreed September 28th of the same year, and a final divorce followed as of October 2, 1937. Under California law the marital status is not affected by the interlocutory decree but the court may without further proceedings enter the final decree at any time after the expiration of one year from the entry of the interlocutory judgment. In re Estate of Boeson, 201 Cal. 36 , 255 P. 800 .

If the settlement agreement is interpreted as providing that the husband’s future earnings for the period of two years following the date of the agreement shall belong to him, as distinguished from the community, but not otherwise, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Board of Tax Appeals were right in determining that the husband was legally bound to report all of his earnings up to the date of the final divorce decree for the purpose of federal income tax assessment. Hel *976 vering v. Hickman, 9 Cir., 70 F.2d 985 ; Van Every v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 108 F.2d 650 ;…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.