������ COURT OF APPEALS ��������������� DECISION �� DATED AND RELEASED ������������ APRIL 30, 1996 |
����������������� NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals.� See � 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing.� If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No.� 95-3254
STATE
OF WISCONSIN�������������� IN COURT OF
APPEALS
�� � DISTRICT III�����������
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
RANDY JOSEPH MANN,
����������������������� ����������������������� ����������� Plaintiff-Respondent,
����������� ����������� v.
LOUISE MARIE MANN,
����������������������� ����������������������� ����������� Defendant-Appellant.
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������� APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Brown County:�
VIVI L. DILWEG, Judge.� Affirmed.
����������������������� Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
����������������������� PER
CURIAM. Louise Marie Mann appeals an order requiring her,
under penalty of contempt, to sign an amended 1994 income tax return.� She argues that the trial court changed the
federal and state tax rules, regulations and codes, violated her civil and
constitutional rights and compelled her to do the impossible by requiring her
to sign tax forms that were nonexistent and fraudulent.� We reject these arguments and affirm the
order.
����������������������� The divorce judgment
included a stipulation that Louise would "complete the order of the family
court commissioner with regard to the income taxes for 1994 within a reasonable
period ...."� That order required
her to submit a joint tax return for that year.� Louise filed a "married filing separately" return.� The trial court required her to file an
amended return implementing the divorce judgment and the stipulation.�
����������������������� The divorce judgment was
not appealed and the time for appealing it has expired.� Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to
review the divorce judgment.� See
Rule 809.10(1)(b), Stats.�
Louise has also failed to request relief from the stipulation under
� 806.07, Stats., in the
trial court.� Therefore, to the extent
this appeal raises issues that would require relief from the stipulation or the
initial divorce judgment, those issues will not be addressed.�
����������������������� Louise mischaracterizes
the trial court's decision when she argues that the court lacks authority to
change the tax laws, rules, regulations or codes.� A divorce court has authority to enforce the parties'
stipulations regarding tax matters.� Louise's
argument that the trial court took on the role of a tax appeals court is absurd.
����������������������� Louise next argues that
the court violated her civil and constitutional rights by requiring her to file
a joint return.� Louise's right to
choose whether to file a joint or separate return was waived by her stipulation
in which she agreed to file a joint return.��
A person's "privacy rights" are not violated by disclosure of
tax information in divorce proceedings.
����������������������� Louise argues that it is
impossible to comply with the trial court's order because the Treasury
Department, the Office of Internal Revenue and the Wisconsin Department of
Revenue do not have tax forms entitled "amended joint 1994 income tax
returns."� The lack of a form with
a specific title does not make it impossible to comply with the trial court's
order.� Randy has prepared amended tax
forms and brought them to court for Louise's signature.� The order on appeal requires Louise to sign
these forms.� Louise's insistence on
filing an "Amended Joint Federal and State Tax Return" because that
language was used in the temporary order results from a hypertechnical reading
of that order.� The trial court and
Randy have made reasonable accommodations to make compliance possible for
Louise.
����������������������� Finally, Louise makes
unspecified and unsupported allegations of tax fraud and harassment by Randy's
attorney.� The record does not contain
any evidence to support these allegations and the issue is not sufficiently
argued in Louise's brief to allow further discussion.
����������������������� Randy has filed a motion
to find this appeal frivolous.� While we
conclude that the issues raised have no merit, there is no basis for concluding
that the appeal was brought in bad faith or that Louise knew her arguments
lacked a basis in law or fact.� As a pro
se litigant, Louise cannot be held to the same knowledge of law that an
attorney would possess.
����������������������� By the Court.�Order
affirmed.
����������������������� This opinion will not be
published.� See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.�