202301650 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse

202.301650 Defendant voluntarily resigned from his position with Heritage in year 2013 citing the business practices of the business. ISSUES The issues are numerous as to the result of this action and the pending Decree of Dissolution. As previously stated, the parties both agreed, and benefited, from a business and personal standpoint, to the structural business model on which Heritage operated. The placing of the stock solely in the Plaintiffs name and the tax consequences and benefits received during the relationship were knowingly and intelligently entered into by the parties. At the dissolution the Court's responsibility is to equitably divide the assets that the parties acquired jointly through their respective efforts. The "inequities" of tax withholding and ability to claim tax losses are not subject to being recouped through IRS filings. The parties put forth in their respective positions that Defendant feels that joint tax returns for 2012 and 2013 should be ordered so that Defendant may benefit from the continued loss carryover provisions of the tax code. The Court cannot do this. Bock v. Dalbey, 283 Neb. 294, states clearly the law in Nebraska is that the Court cannot compel parties to file a joint income tax return. The Plaintiff desires that she be allowed to maintain her 54.6 percent stock ownership of Heritage or, in the alternative, that the stock owned by the Plaintiff be redesignated so that Plaintiff will maintain the voting rights of the majority shareholder in the corporation. What this ignores is the corporate interest of the other shareholders of 45.4 percent of Heritage. Any change in the stock designation, signifying ownership, or rights of individual stock certificates, 4 Certified Page 4 of 10