Barbara Robbins (now Barbara Asbury) Filed Fraudlent Tax Returns

Disclaimer | Site Map | Home Page | Contact Us

In our Adversarial Complaint to the Bankruptcy Court, Adv Pro. 06-1225-EEB filed against Case No. 05-40334-EEB, we stated:
The divorce of Barbara Robbins went into effect on or about May 5, 2003. However, the settlement agreement took much longer. As part of her divorce settlement decree (02-DR-3915), dated July 15, 2004, Barbara Robbins received a $10,000 spousal maintenance immediately and $833 a month for twelve months (see Attachment 16g, Page 2, "Article 2A"). Upon questioning at the December 16, 2005 Meeting of Creditors, when asked by Ms Martinez if she had received alimony or maintenance from her divorce in 2003, Barbara Robbins replied "No. Just the truck." The follow-up question was "Anything else?" Barbara Robbins stated "$800 or so". At this point the tape recorder tape had to be changed. The last question was repeated. Barbara Robbins replied she got $800 a month for twelve months starting she believed in late 2003. She actually received the support payments of $833 a month beginning in August 2004 ($4,165 for five months of 2004) and a lump sum payment of $10,000 in August 2004. The lump sum payment was not admitted by her and it was not on the bankruptcy filing as income under ś2 of the "Statement of Financial Affairs". She later acknowledged the $10,000 lump sum after direct questioning by Karen Dudnikov. In a later question, did she receive spousal maintenance from Douglas Robbins after July 2004, she replied, "No". Was she awarded something after July 2004? She replied a trailer that she believed to be in Texas. She again lied about not receiving spousal maintenance which she did receive. How could she not remember the alimony from just a year earlier?
Spousal Maintenance is deductible from the income of the party paying it and has to be declared as income to the party receiving it. Since the ex-husband of Barbara Robbins was almost certain to claim the spousal support as an income deduction, along with him listing the social security number of the recipient, it is unlikely she would attempt to deceive the Internal Revenue about the fact she had received it. However, it seems a reasonable conclusion that if she deliberately omitted listing the spousal support under ś2 "Income Other" on the "Statement of Financial Affairs", she would have provided the Bankruptcy Trustee with a 2004 tax return that did not show the spousal maintenance received in 2004. In either event, she has lied to someone.
Not to out done, Barbie's response to the Bankruptcy Court was that the money she received from Doug was her "share of business proceeds" and not spousal maintenance, and that if her husband attempts to deduct it from his taxes she will fight it.
In our reply we state:
Debtor refers to the monies received from her divorce as her "share of business proceeds" (see Response #2 ś3b), however the settlement agreement signed by her on July 9, 2004, specifically refers to the money as "Spousal Maintenance" under Article Two on page 2 (see Memorandum Attachment 16G, page 2). Spousal maintenance is income. Regardless of what Debtor claims, the Court document, which she signed and had notarized, plainly states it is spousal maintenance which makes it Spousal Maintenance.
In addition, the Separation Agreement stipulates that:
"The Husband's obligation to pay spousal maintenance shall earlier terminate upon the Wife's death, the Wife's remarriage or the Husband's death, whichever may occur first". (see Memorandum Attachment 16G, page 2).
A repayment of a business debt would not cease because the other party got remarried. This is deliberate income tax evasion on the part of the Debtor, currently an enrolled agent.
Debtor was able to properly remember when she sold the truck she received as part of her "Separation Agreement" but not the money? She was receiving monthly Spousal Maintenance checks for twelve months up to July, 2005, a mere three months before filing for bankruptcy and she couldn't remember them? But she claims she "incorrectly placed the settlement date in 2003" (see Response #2 ś3b) and she is a certified tax account who keeps records? She didn't incorrectly place them, she deliberately omitted them.
She has admitted in court documents she knowingly did not claim the spousal maintenance she received. Barbie, that's income tax evasion.

Rebuttals
Karen and Mike are willing to give someone the opportunity to rebut anything said on this web site about them.
We will post that rebuttal, provided it is in good taste, sent it is to us in a format that can be copied, and it addresses the issues. We will not alter the rebuttal unless the content forces us to do so. Karen & Mike are the only ones responsible for the content of this web site. For those who really, really don't like what we say here, consider reading Paragraph I of the Colorado Court of Appeals decision concerning this web site, where the Court stated:
"...the website constitutes protected speech or press under the First Amendment."