Devore v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
963 F.2d 280 (1992)

- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Maria Cole was married to Nat King Cole, and the couple hired Harry Margolis to represent them in a number of personal matters. After Nat King Cole’s death, Margolis continued to represent Maria. Maria married Gary Devore (plaintiff) in 1969. The couple filed joint tax returns for all but one year of their marriage. Maria and Devore separated in 1976, and the couple divorced two years later. Margolis represented Maria and Devore in proceedings before the tax court pertaining to deficiencies for the tax years 1970 through 1975. Leo Branton, Jr., took over for Margolis in 1987. Even after their separation and divorce, Maria and Devore were represented by joint counsel in the tax matter. The tax court issued a judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (defendant), finding Devore liable for a deficiency of $135,000 and a $6,765 penalty. In a separate judgment, Devore and Maria were held jointly and severally liable for deficiencies exceeding $300,000. Devore moved to vacate the judgments, asserting that the joint representation of himself and his ex-wife resulted in a conflict of interest that prevented counsel from raising defenses on Devore’s behalf. Devore argued that he had significantly less assets than Maria before and after their marriage, that he lacked sophistication in tax matters, and that he was excluded from Maria’s financial matters. The tax court denied Devore’s motion, and Devore appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.