pre-nuptial agreement?

What is the name of your state? Tx
Not sure if I should be posting here or on the credit problem forum. I need information concerning pre-nuptial agreements and how to protect and seperate my assets from an old IRS debt that is beginning to surface on my fiance's part. We are suppose to get married in 3 months and I dont know how much the audit will cost him but from what I have put together I am afraid it could run anywhere from 25k-75k. I don t want to loose what is mine already nor what I/we may aquire in the future to satisfy his old debt.

Yes, indeed have a prenup. Talk to a family law attorney.

However, you must maintain a seperation of assets AFTER the marriage to make certain they are protected. Keep his name off your house and your accounts. If you get a refund, file seperately. Keep your paycheck going into your own checking and savings accounts. Continue to make the mortgage payments out of your account, if applicable. You can have a small joint household checking account that you each feed money into and use as needed for shared expenses. At minimum, until he gets this issue resolved.

Duplicate post... now with contradictory answers.

THE PRENUP WILL NOT HELP YOU!!!

For responses, go to the OTHER post at:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?threadid=165530

"I need information concerning pre-nuptial agreements and how to protect and seperate my assets"

Sorry, JETX, didn't know about the other post. The question in this post was about protecting CURRENT premarital assets from his IRS problems. My intention was to say to not only get a prenup, but also to not co-mingle premarital property with after marriage acquistions. In other words, once married, you must continue to keep premarital property seperate. Is that contradictory to what you posted? Or did I phrase it wrong? I may have mis-stated.

I understood that premarital assets, kept seperate, would not be subject to his tax liens if his spouse entered marriage with a prenup .

I appreciate your helping me correct any misinformation I erroneously provided.

The problem was in "Yes, indeed have a prenup."
The pre-nup is only used to determine legal distribution of assets in the event of a divorce. It does NOTHING to prohibit (or inhibit) IRS action and cannot be used to 'show separation' of assets.

WE have a friend whose prenup set out a provison for distribution of any income tax refund if they file jointly while married. The provision made the refund the "property" of each of them proportionate to the witholding they contributed. They had done that because he had been named in a paternity action for a four year old he hadn't known existed and they did not know whether there would be back CS and the DNA would be positive. When they got a notice of interception of the refund, she challenged it, the IRS read the prenup and agreed that, in that year, the entire refund, per prenup, belonged to her, due to her 100% contribution of the "overpayment". And the IRS returned all of her refund because that was the prenup established future refunds allocated that way.

I realize this is anecdodal, but I had answered that way because I knew that their prenup had made a difference in their dealings with IRS and had "seperated" the tax refund as belonging to her.

That may very well be that the IRS made that decision based on a prenup, but we all know that the IRS cannot be counted on to apply the same rules (or decisions) in all cases. The decision to accept and apply the prenup to separate FUTURE payments could just as easily go the opposite way..... and even more likely since we are talking about the IRS recovering funds due, rather than paying out a refund.

I again state that the prenup, in my opinion, should not be presumed to protect the writer in this case.... nor would it.

The pre-nup is good for trying to resolve FUTURE issues regarding marital assets, but really has no 'legal standing' to the IRS.

Agreed! Thank you for taking the time to explain.

It is not foolproof protection. IF one is marrying the guy anyway, having one is better than not having one, because it MIGHT, sometimes, under some limited circumstances, help.