Tate A. Hohnstein & Alexandra T. Faretra, Docket No. 3547-22S, filed 2/8/24, looks like a straight underpayment, with deficiency and 20% negligence chop thrown in at no extra charge stiped out. So why an off-the-bencher from Judge Goeke?

Alexandra was seeking divorce from Tate during year at issue, but that didn’t become final for more than a year thereafter. So Alex filed MFJ for year at issue, getting Tate’s info from him to prepare same, per deal between their respective counsel. Only for whatever reason Tate didn’t give her a W-2 showing an extra $30K of income, hence the SNOD, which they petition.

Or maybe not, since Alexandra claims she never signed the petition.

Except.

Alexandra fully participates in this case, with her own trusty attorneys, and signs the stip agreeing to the deficiency and chop. So the case is over, right?

No, because said trusty attorneys want, and get, Section 6015(b) apportioned innocent spousery.

Tate says Alexandra got the benefit of the $30K. So what? says Judge Goeke.

“…it would appear that had he submitted this W-2 to Ms. Faretra’s counsel in the divorce proceedings, he may have been subject to paying additional amounts to her in the divorce proceeding, as this amount was far in excess of his normal income in prior years.

“This failure to include the W-2 has been the subject of a stipulation and agreement by the parties and is no longer in dispute.” Transcript at p. 5.

Alexandra says she didn’t know about the $30K or the W-2 disclosing same. Judge Goeke says there’s no evidence she did know, and besides, it was in her interest to let the divorce court know, so she could get more out of Tate, as she had custody of their children.

So Judge Goeke gives Alexandra innocent spousery on the deficiency and chop. And Taishoff gives her trusty attorneys a “Good job.”

I wonder if Alexandra and trusty attorneys are now on their way back to divorce court.