Not provided to me by counsel was the case of Cosentino v. Cosentino[66] in which Justice Perkins dealt specifically with tax liability arising from a post-separation reassessment. In that case, the husband argued that he should be allowed to deduct this liability in calculating his net family property on the valuation date because it was a contingent liability as of that date, though it had not yet been quantified. At paragraph 38, Justice Perkins decided that it could not. It would be stretching the meaning of "liability" to include an obligation that arose later, merely because it was calculated in relation to a year when the parties were still living together. Not only had the reassessment not come into existence on the valuation date, but also there was no suggestion that it was coming. Taking a financial snapshot of the husband on that date, no one would have suggested he was subject to any contingent liability for income tax.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.