Joint returns - is this constitutional?

[Kimokeo]

The Constitution provides the Government the authority to tax.
In the Constitution, rights are granted to the individual.

When a husband and wife sign a joint return, the jurat only asks if the information is accurate. There really isn't a statement of 'we both should be held liable in this issue'.

The balance is jointly owed and refunds are owed to the couple jointly.

But, who should receive the bill or refund?

I find this part of taxation odd because the tax is collected against both persons when there is a debt. Yet, if you go back many, many years, a wife may not have worked. So, holding her responsible for a joint debt would be foolish since only one person is usually working. Yet, we hold both to pay. Maybe it was designed to go after inheritance if he dies and she receives it all. But, that doesn't explain it since IRS could go after the estate.

If you tax the income of one, how is the tax bill legally owed by two?

It would seem that the equitable relief - making each person liable for their own share - would always be granted because why should anyone ever be held to pay another person's debt.

Has there ever been a judicial review of this? Is there some logic and reasoning behind joint and severable liability?

Suffering from curiosity

[Investor]

Keep in mind that a married couple is not required to file a joint return. If there is something on that return for which you do not wish to be held liable, then refuse to sign it. Just file a MFS return instead.

[jg]

When a husband and wife sign a joint return, the jurat only asks if the information is accurate. There really isn't a statement of 'we both should be held liable in this issue'.

There is actually a bit more than just accurate, but I do get your drift.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.

Seems to me that you could make a similar claim for an individual- that is, if you consider the jurat insufficient for the couple, is it not similarly defiicent for an individual?
In either case, the signer is affirming the return and accompanying schedules and statements as true, correct, and complete. That would seem enough (to this lay person) to make one liable for any misrepresentations.

Just my thoughts, not always significant, of course.

[Dr. Caligari]

By statute, both spouses are jointly and severally liable for all tax due on the return (including taxes not shown on the return as filed, but only determined after audit), even if only one spouse earned the income. (Filing a joint return, as has been pointed out, is voluntary, so one who doesn't want this burden doesn't have to file jointly).

There is a statutory exception for an "innocent spouse," who can escape liability for tax not shown on the return as a result of fraud by the other spouse, but that exception is not automatic-- the innocent spouse has to prove a number of things; many spouses litigate the issue and lose it.

[Quixote]

When a husband and wife sign a joint return, the jurat only asks if the information is accurate. There really isn't a statement of 'we both should be held liable in this issue'.

One bit of information that they are saying is accurate is the filing status, in this case married filing jointly. Not all the information needed to file a return accurately is contained on the Form 1040 itself. The tax rate schedules, for example, are in the instructions. Also in the instructions is a description of the ramifications of filing a joint return.

I see no problem with holding a non-working spouse responsible for the tax on a joint return. The IRS decided long ago not to look into a household's internal economy to determine the true tax liability of each member. It would be absurd, however, not to recognize that non-working spouses are the ultimate recipient, by gift or barter, of much of the household's income.

[Kimokeo]

By statute, both spouses are jointly and severally liable for all tax due on the return (including taxes not shown on the return as filed, but only determined after audit), even if only one spouse earned the income. (Filing a joint return, as has been pointed out, is voluntary, so one who doesn't want this burden doesn't have to file jointly).

There is a statutory exception for an "innocent spouse," who can escape liability for tax not shown on the return as a result of fraud by the other spouse, but that exception is not automatic-- the innocent spouse has to prove a number of things; many spouses litigate the issue and lose it.

Part of the innocent spouse issue is the 'knowledge' of that income. What would be the outcome of court cases if 'knowledge' wasn't part of the test? Would you expect spouses to win more?

[grammarian44]

Part of the innocent spouse issue is the 'knowledge' of that income. What would be the outcome of court cases if 'knowledge' wasn't part of the test? Would you expect spouses to win more?

What would make a spouse "innocent" apart from a lack of knowledge of what the other spouse was doing to earn income and/or fail to report it accurately? In other words, what would be the purpose of innocent spouse relief if it did not address the innocent spouse's ignorance?