Lindsey Brandt, V. Andrew Brandt

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Marriage of
No. 81924-1-I
ANDREW T. BRANDT, (consolidated with No. 82220-9-I)
Respondent, DIVISION ONE
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LINDSEY K. BRANDT,
Appellant.
APPELWICK, J. — Upon their marital dissolution, the trial court ordered the
Brandts to file a joint federal tax return for 2019. Lindsey refused and now appeals
the court’s original order and subsequent order on enforcement. We affirm.
FACTS
Andrew and Lindsey Brandt1 married in December 2012 and had two
children. They separated on January 27, 2019. Andrew petitioned for dissolution
in March 2019.
In May 2020, Andrew and Lindsey signed a CR 2A partial settlement
agreement that divided the property and debt between them. Both parties intended
the CR 2A agreement to be “fully binding and enforceable.” As part of the
agreement, the CR 2A contained a hold harmless provision stating, “Each party
1
For clarity, we refer to Lindsey Brandt and Andrew Brandt by their first
names. We intend no disrespect.
No. 81924-1-I/2
shall hold the other party harmless regarding any debts assigned to a party in this
agreement.”
Andrew and Lindsey went to trial to determine child support, maintenance,
and the parenting plan. At trial, Andrew requested the court order the parties to
file their federal tax returns as “married filing jointly.” He testified that the difference
between the tax burden for “married filing separately” and “married filing jointly”
was approximately $50,000. Andrew agreed that he would pay all taxes and costs
associated with the federal tax filing. There would be no cost to Lindsey. Lindsey
raised several concerns about her potential tax liability and impact on her financial
situation, but failed to submit evidence in support of these issues.
The court told the parties that from the admitted evidence “it appears that
the request from Mr. Brandt will save a significant amount of money at least as I
understand the testimony.” The trial court decided to adopt Andrew’s request as
“that is just simply in all fairness what should happen.” In its findings of fact, the
trial court included “based on the evidence presented that Married Filing Jointly will
benefit the family for the filing of federal 2019 income taxes.” The court entered
the final decree of dissolution on September 2, 2020, establishing financial
support, the parenting plan, and incorporating the terms of the CR 2A for property
and debt distribution. The court also reserved jurisdiction over the tax filing issue.
Lindsey filed motions for reconsideration of the trial court’s decisions,
including the tax filing. Her motions were denied. Lindsey also filed a notice of
appeal for the decree of dissolution, findings of fact and conclusions of law, final
child support order, and final parenting plan.
2
No. 81924-1-I/3
While the appeal was pending, Lindsey told Andrew she would not file a
joint tax return. Instead, she wanted to file both tax fraud and innocent spouse
documents.2 Andrew filed his tax return separately, amounting to $103,890 tax
owed, rather than $60,899, the amount if the parties had filed jointly.
In November 2020, Andrew brought a motion to enforce the court’s decision
on the tax issue. He requested the court order Lindsey to amend her federal tax
return to file jointly with him and fine her $50 per day if she failed to comply. In the
alternative, Andrew asked the court to order Lindsey to reimburse the additional
taxes he would incur from filing separately.
The trial court found that Lindsey had “in bad faith willfully refused to file a
joint tax return with Andrew Brandt and the court further finds [Lindsey] engaged
in abusive use of conflict as well.” Additionally, the trial court determined that the
hold harmless clause of the CR 2A applied and Lindsey caused Andrew to incur
$42,991 in additional tax liability. The court granted Andrew’s motion to enforce
the tax issue, ordering Lindsey to amend her federal tax return to file jointly with
Andrew within 30 days. After those 30 days, the court would fine Lindsey $50 per
day for each day she failed to file jointly. Lindsey was also responsible for all
penalties and fees incurred as a result of the failure to file in compliance with the
previous order. The court awarded $2,000 in attorney fees to Andrew and set a
review hearing to assess compliance.
2 The “innocent spouse” provision relieves the unknowing spouse of joint
and several liability for jointly filed taxes when there is a substantial
understatement of tax attributable to grossly erroneous items of the other spouse.
Bliss v. Comm’r, 59 F.3d 374, 377-38 (2d Cir. 1995).
3
No. 81924-1-I/4
Lindsey filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order to enforce the tax issue.
The two appeals were consolidated. Lindsey raises only issues pertaining to the
tax filing.
DISCUSSION
Lindsey disputes the trial court’s order to file federal taxes jointly which
would reduce Andrew’s tax burden by $42,991.
A trial court’s decisions in dissolution are seldom changed on appeal. In re
Marriage of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 809, 699 P.2d 214 (1985). “The emotional
and financial interests affected by such decisions are best served by finality.” Id.The party challenging a decision bears the heavy burden of showing a manifest
abuse of discretion. Id. We will affirm the trial court’s decision unless no
reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion. Id. at 809-10.
Lindsey argues the trial court’s final divorce order and the order to enforce
the tax provisions violates federal law because she and Andrew were not married
in 2019 for federal tax purposes. She is incorrect.
Under federal tax law, “an individual who is legally separated from his
spouse under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance shall not be
considered as married.” 26 USC 6013(d)(2). Domestic issues, such as issuance
of a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance, are matters of state law, not
federal. See In re Marriage of Peacock, 54 Wn. App. 12, 14-15, 771 P.2d 767(1989). In Washington, “[a] decree of dissolution of marriage or domestic
partnership, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity is final when entered.”
RCW 26.09.150(1).
4
No. 81924-1-I/5
Here, the trial court entered the final decree of dissolution on September 2,
2020. While the findings of fact and conclusions of law identify Lindsey and
Andrew’s date of separation as January 27, 2019, the record contains no evidence
of a petition for legal separation or decree of legal separation entered by the court.
Andrew and Lindsey did not have “a decree of divorce or of separate
maintenance,” until September 2020. 26 USC 6013(d)(2). They were properly
considered married for the 2019 federal tax filing. The trial court’s order to file
jointly was not an abuse of discretion.
Lindsey argues that a state court does not have the authority to determine
her federal tax filing status, citing Leftwich v. Leftwich, 442 A.2d 139 (D.C. 1982).
In Leftwich, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals3 concluded that allowing a
trial court to order joint filing “would nullify the right of election conferred upon
married taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Code.” Id. at 145. It held that rather
than requiring a joint filing to remedy a tax disadvantage, the court should have
considered a different disposition of the marital property. Id. at 146. It reasoned
that the trial court should have chosen “the least intrusive option.” Id. at 145.
First, we note that Leftwich was decided by the equivalent of a state
supreme court and therefore has no binding authority on this court. Additionally,
the trial court had no “less intrusive” means of distributing the tax burden by
changing the allocation of property between Lindsey and Andrew. The property
division was governed by the binding CR 2A agreement.
3The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the highest court in the District
of Columbia, equivalent to a state supreme court.
5
No. 81924-1-I/6
Lindsey fails to cite to Washington authority in support of her claim that the
trial court could not determine federal tax status.4 Washington law requires trial
courts to “make provision for the allocation of the children as federal tax
exemptions.” RCW 26.09.050(1). In reviewing a trial court’s decision on the child
tax exemption, we noted, “the federal tax provision does not preclude state
involvement in this area. To conclude otherwise would be to allow federal tax
policy to determine domestic relations issues in which the states have particular
interest.” Peacock, 54 Wn. App. at 16. The State’s interest in family law matters
is great, and the trial court’s discretion in dissolution proceedings is broad. The
court’s order to file jointly was not an abuse of discretion.
Lindsey also contends the trial court improperly altered the terms of the CR
2A agreement. According to Lindsey, “the parties already had a legally binding
agreement to separate their ‘indebtedness’” and forcing her to take on additional
tax liability would be modifying the terms of the agreement. But, the CR 2A
agreement makes no mention of federal tax liability and does not apportion the
parties’ tax burden. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling does not alter the agreement.
Moreover, the trial court’s order to file jointly has no impact on Lindsey’s tax liability.
Andrew agreed to pay the entire tax bill and all fees and costs associated with
filing. The dissolution decree ordered that Andrew “shall pay for the [certified
public accountant] to prepare the federal income tax return and shall pay the
4“‘Where no authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court is not
required to search out authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent
search, has found none.’” City of Seattle v. Levesque, 12 Wn. App. 2d 687, 697,
460 P.3d 205 (quoting DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126,
372 P.2d 193 (1962)), review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1031, 468 P.3d 621 (2020).
6
No. 81924-1-I/7
anticipated tax due and owing for 2019.” Lindsey will incur no new debt as a result
of filing a joint tax return.
Finally, Lindsey claims the court failed to provide reasons that joint tax filing
was better than separate filings. The trial court reviewed the evidence submitted
and found that “Married Filing Jointly will benefit the family for the filing of federal
2019 income taxes.” Lindsey does not assign error to that finding and it is a verity
on appeal. See In re Estate of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d 262, 274-75, 444 P.3d 23(2019) (“Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal.”). Moreover, Lindsey
failed to submit evidence in support of her claims that the joint tax filing would
adversely impact her.
Andrew requests fees on appeal based on Lindsey’s intransigence and bad
faith. A party’s intransigence can result in award of attorney fees at trial and on
appeal. In re Marriage of Mattson, 95 Wn. App. 592, 605-06, 976 P.2d 157 (1999).
Due to Lindsey’s continued refusal to comply with the trial court’s order and the
filing of this meritless appeal, we grant Andrew’s request for attorney fees on
appeal.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
7