N.Y. Judge Calls Husband's Pre-Divorce Filing of Back Taxes 'Despicable'

According to Law.com, a New York judge recently ruled that a taxpayer’s move to file amended returns claiming over $1.5 million of extra income on the day of his divorce trial was a malicious attempt to stop his wife from recovering marital assets.

"It is well settled that expenses (including unpaid taxes) incurred prior to the commencement of a divorce action constitute marital debt which, under normal circumstances, should be equally shared by the parties. However, in those rare instances where a party's conduct in creating a debt is so egregious, shocking, fraudulent or malicious, the Court can exercise its discretion and refuse to apportion the debt," Acting Supreme Court Justice Andrew A. Crecca wrote in Maria C. v. Dominick C., 04775/08.

"Under the facts and circumstances of this case," the judge concluded, "this is one of those rare instances."

The Dix Hills couple, whose names were redacted from the decision, were married in 1987 and had four children. The husband runs a home-improvement company, the wife worked "in the secretarial field," as Justice Crecca put it, until their first child was born.

The wife, Maria C., filed for divorce in 2008 on the ground of constructive abandonment. The judge found that the couple had not cohabited as husband and wife since January 2007 and that the husband had refused "to engage in marital relations."

Shortly before the divorce went to trial in March, the defendant-husband, Dominick C., unilaterally filed marital tax returns for the years 2004 through 2007.

In the amended returns, the husband admitted earning more than $1.6 million in unreported income over those four years.

The husband filed the returns on his own initiative, as the couple was not being audited or under investigation, and without his wife's signature. He included on the cover page a list of assets the government might consider attaching, including the couple's house. The husband stated the house's value ($1.2 million), the size of the mortgage and the name of the bank that held the loan.

Man Indicted for Plot to Intimidate Judge in Tax Evasion Case

Robert Beale is currently in jail while he awaits a sentence for tax evasion, but he did not agree with the decision made by the judge who ruled on the case. However, instead of filing an appeal or seeking help form his attorney, Beale felt that God wanted him to take action into his own hands. Below is a quote from an article on WSJ.com.

“According to this indictment, filed Tuesday in Minnesota federal court, a month before Beale was convicted, he made a call from jail to a friend who shared his dislike of the U.S. tax system. ‘God wants me to destroy the judge,’ Beale told his friend. ‘That judge is evil. He wants me to get rid of her.’

That friend, along with two other men, are now co-defendants with Beale in another indictment. They’ve all been charged with attempting to prevent Judge Montgomery from presiding over Beale’s tax evasion trial through force, intimidation and threat, according to the indictment. (Here’s a story from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.)

The defendants allegedly held a ‘common law court’ to issue false liens and ‘arrest warrants’ against Judge Montgomery. They were also planning to disrupt court proceedings in the belief that only Jesus Christ has jurisdiction over people, according to the indictment. Beale allegedly instructed the group to bring 30 to 40 people to his trial to disrupt it if Montgomery failed to dismiss the charges. No more than a handful of observers ever attended, reports the Trib.

Now, we know what you’re thinking. A group with this kind of chutzpah must have a great name. And you’re right. According to the indictment, the men called themselves this mouth-full: ‘Our one supreme court Common-Law court for the de-jure Ramsey: the county: Minnesota; the land a superior court for the People, original jurisdiction under Almighty Yahweh exclusive jurisdiction in and for confederation-government United States of America.’”