Can I quash a Civil Subpoena(Duces Tecum)?

[gator1]

Originally Posted by mzfromca
But I don't think anyone has the right to see my taxes.

But you are wrong.

OP is NOT wrong until such time as he acquiesces to the subpoena, OR the judge denies his motion and orders production of his tax returns. Neither of which has happened yet.

 

[tranquility]

I disagree. Anyone can fudge receipts and check stubs that say money paid from one party to another.

Anyone can file a false tax return or fudge a copy or make a new one out of whole cloth that is/was never filed. Sure, the reason it is considered "better" sometimes is because it is filed under penalty of perjury. Now, what happens when one lies on a material matter in sworn testimony? As gator1 pointed out, the OP does not seem to be a party to the case. To get an unrelated parties tax return will require a very high level of relevance to make it not be over broad and burdensome-especially when sworn testimony by the OP and a partiy to the case's checks would prove the same thing.

 

[Bali Hai]

Anyone can file a false tax return or fudge a copy or make a new one out of whole cloth that is/was never filed. Sure, the reason it is considered "better" sometimes is because it is filed under penalty of perjury. Now, what happens when one lies on a material matter in sworn testimony? As gator1 pointed out, the OP does not seem to be a party to the case. To get an unrelated parties tax return will require a very high level of relevance to make it not be over broad and burdensome-especially when sworn testimony by the OP and a partiy to the case's checks would prove the same thing.

Got it. The g/f writes a rent check, OP cashes it and gives her back the cash. I wonder how much the monthly rent amounts to; $50? OP claims it on his taxes and pays the additional tax (which probably amounts to squat) with part of the g/f's alimony.

Let's keep all this buried and not hold the OP accountable in the g/f's fraud. After all it's only the ex-husband getting the shaft!

 

[stealth2]

Got it. The g/f writes a rent check, OP cashes it and gives her back the cash. I wonder how much the monthly rent amounts to; $50? OP claims it on his taxes and pays the additional tax (which probably amounts to squat) with part of the g/f's alimony.

Let's keep all this buried and not hold the OP accountable in the g/f's fraud. After all it's only the ex-husband getting the shaft!

I agree. And most of you know I RARELY agree with Bali!

 

[nanu156]

One would think that if the offended party wanted to disprove the "rental" that they would actually try to force this poster to sign a 4506-T request for tax return, as anyone can fill out a tax form and print it from a home computer, it can say whatever they like (oh and I KNOW, because borrowers try to pull this crap all the time to get mortgages) the 4506-T allows the requester to get an actual copy of the FILED return. But again I think this is burdensome.

In any event, I agree with this poster, he is not a party to this case and the requests by the party in question will make PUBLIC his earnings. Once they are a part of this case any party at any time can go down and see them. This happened not too long ago in the news actually... MTV has as a part of their contracts with certain reality stars a non-disclosure clause. One of these reality stars (Amber) got herself in trouble with the law, as a part of her criminal case she had to disclose her earnings, now the world knows what MTV pays her and the other girls... (don't ask me why I know this) In any event it depends on this posters income, job, status but he could certainly claim that making public his earnings would damage him.

So this poster should definitely retain counsel if he intends to fight this subpoena, especially if he stands to take losses in the event that his income information became a matter of public record.

OP is the current motion for which your returns have been subpoenaed about stopping your ladies Alimony? Or is it for some other reason?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

What would happen if OP showed up with the income portion of the tax forms redacted, or showed up with only Schedule E?

 

[tuffbrk]

The "rules" to prove cohabitation are burdensome and if a judge rules for discovery on it, that means the court is willing to entertain that the relationship is more than that of simple room mates.

One would think that all that would be needed is the GF's bank statements to prove whether or not she is being financially supported by the OP, but people receiving alimony know the loopholes in cohabitation and do what they can to get around them. If the courts would make the requirements to prove cohabitation less burdensome, this type of stuff would most likely not happen. Of course, there must be some basis showing that they share chores, tasks, are recognized as a couple, etc. on top of the financials.

If a person chooses to accept alimony for any length of time, they have to be prepared to show proof that they continue to need the funds and accept that their privacy is going to be violated on an on-going basis. If OP chose to get involved with an alimony recipient, he should have been prepared to be called as a witness. The significant other is almost always called as a witness and typically has to provide proof that they are not financially assisting the alimony receiver. It's pretty much needed in order to prove cohabitation.

Frankly, in my opinion, if you hold yourself out to be a significant other of a person that you reside with for a period of 18 months or longer, it should automatically be ruled as cohabitation. Then a lot of this nonsense would stop. Of course, the attorneys would no longer profit as much from these cases, but it would at least be a realistic measure of the relationship. If there wasn't any underlying plan to commit to each other, folks would be less likely to live together if they realized that the alimony would be terminated after 18 months.

Sermon end.

 

[tranquility]

Got it. The g/f writes a rent check, OP cashes it and gives her back the cash. I wonder how much the monthly rent amounts to; $50? OP claims it on his taxes and pays the additional tax (which probably amounts to squat) with part of the g/f's alimony.

Let's keep all this buried and not hold the OP accountable in the g/f's fraud. After all it's only the ex-husband getting the shaft!

You forgot to add the part about the testimony of the OP. Perjury is perjury people.

In court, the tax return would probably not get in under a relevance objection. True, subpoenas can be broader than seeking admissible evidence, but there is nothing the tax return provides here that can't be provided with less burdensome means.

To Stevef, clearly asking for the tax return is overbroad. A schedule E or C (depending on the facts, but probably E) redacted would be more appropriately limited.

 

[nanu156]

But wouldn't that negatively effect persons in true "room-mate" situations. Particularly in areas where rents are very high and a person with out great skill and experience may have trouble raising the funds to live alone. For instance if this poster and his lady-friend live in San Francisco, a quick rental search shows rents range from 2000-6000+/mo. It would be plausible that a recipient of Alimony would not be able to earn a living that would give them enough to afford rents on their own.

What about scenarios where the payee lives with a family member would they then be subject to your new rules?

I totally get and agree with what you are saying, HOWEVER it seems that modification of the rules could affect unintended parties.

 

[tranquility]

Oh, here we go. See also:

http://california-discovery-law.com/tax-%20privilege-%202.html

 

[Bali Hai]

I agree. And most of you know I RARELY agree with Bali!

You need to qualify your agreement with others here?

 

[Bali Hai]

But wouldn't that negatively effect persons in true "room-mate" situations. Particularly in areas where rents are very high and a person with out great skill and experience may have trouble raising the funds to live alone. For instance if this poster and his lady-friend live in San Francisco, a quick rental search shows rents range from 2000-6000+/mo. It would be plausible that a recipient of Alimony would not be able to earn a living that would give them enough to afford rents on their own.

What about scenarios where the payee lives with a family member would they then be subject to your new rules?

I totally get and agree with what you are saying, HOWEVER it seems that modification of the rules could affect unintended parties.

The same would apply to those who must earn their living WITHOUT alimony. So either get a job that sustains a living in SF or move.

 

[nanu156]

The same would apply to those who must earn their living WITHOUT alimony. So either get a job that sustains a living in SF or move.

Well yes, I agree. But those living wo alimony would be free to have roommates... I would argue that being a SO does not negate that the parties could also be roommates. Also it gets tricky to define SO's...

Frankly, in my opinion, if you hold yourself out to be a significant other of a person that you reside with for a period of 18 months or longer, it should automatically be ruled as cohabitation. Then a lot of this nonsense would stop. Of course, the attorneys would no longer profit as much from these cases, but it would at least be a realistic measure of the relationship. If there wasn't any underlying plan to commit to each other, folks would be less likely to live together if they realized that the alimony would be terminated after 18 months.

if this were amended to be viewed in this manor the unintended consequence would be that some persons who have legitimate roommates would no longer qualify for the alimony. Thats all.

 

[Bali Hai]

Well yes, I agree. But those living wo alimony would be free to have roommates... I would argue that being a SO does not negate that the parties could also be roommates. Also it gets tricky to define SO's...

There are rules to receiving state welfare...number one, don't expect to receive it forever when you are capable of earning a living. Alimony should also have rules to prevent those from collecting it under false pretenses. However, since the ex-husband is the only one adversely affected, we relax the rules or have no rules at all?


if this were amended to be viewed in this manor the unintended consequence would be that some persons who have legitimate roommates would no longer qualify for the alimony. Thats all.

Nothing wrong with that......

 

[tuffbrk]

Well yes, I agree. But those living wo alimony would be free to have roommates... I would argue that being a SO does not negate that the parties could also be roommates. Also it gets tricky to define SO's...



if this were amended to be viewed in this manor the unintended consequence would be that some persons who have legitimate roommates would no longer qualify for the alimony. Thats all.

Absolutely disagree with you. Reread what I wrote. The part you seem to have missed is "holding themselves out to be a significant other." A part of proving cohabitation is that the parties hold themselves out as a couple. Someone with an actual room mate or living with family would not be part of a "couple." It's the first step of proving cohabitation. Without the "couple" perspective, you will not get a court to agree to discovery on the topic of cohabitation.

Also consider that more and more people are choosing to not marry. They live together and behave in every way as a married couple other than obviously blending finances. They grocery shop together, they attend family events and parties together, they go out to dinner and on vacation together...should alimony then be terminated? Or should it remain in effect because the alimony recipient claims their Significant Other is simply a friend and room mate? It's really incredibly difficult to prove cohabitation.