RaeAnn Smith

1 Because it concludes Debtor’s objection should be denied on the merits, the
Court need not reach IRS’s challenge to the adequacy of service of Debtor’s objection to
IRS’s claim.
SUMMARY ORDER - 4
community property state, the gross income and deductions corresponding to the
trade or business is treated as the income of the spouse carrying on the business
for tax computation purposes. See Chang v. Comm’r, 48 T.C.M. (CCH) 99 (1984)
(explaining that, since the wife did not exercise “substantially all of the
management and control” of the business, all income derived from self-
employment was attributed to the husband for purposes of computing the self-
employment taxes owed). In other words, 26 U.S.C. § 1402(a) simply does not
deal with who is responsible to pay taxes owed for self-employment income.
The reasoning and holding in Heidig v. Comm’r, 52 T.C.M. (CCH)
360 (1986), which Debtor cited, is also inapplicable. In that case, the IRS’s claim
for taxes and other charges was “not based upon a joint return or joint and several
liability.” Here, IRS specifically claims the taxes and other charges are based on
Debtor’s joint returns. 1
For these reasons, and for other good cause, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Debtor’s Amended Objection to IRS Proof of Claim, Docket
No. 31, be and is hereby OVERRULED, and said claim be and is hereby
ALLOWED.
Case 05-01481-JDP Doc 37 Filed 10/25/05 Entered 10/25/05 08:35:53 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 1