Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!ajf
From: ajf@pyuxa.UUCP (A Figura)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <1141@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 16:55:29 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.1141
Posted: Mon Feb 25 16:55:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 08:31:35 EST
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 8
Xref: watmath net.taxes:731 net.singles:5992 net.women:4535


Re: <403@wxlvax.UUCP> by Tom Slack:
>  "common-law" marriages have existed long before our income tax
>  amendment.  This is evident in case of abandonment.
>  A person can claim a common-law marriage and get benefits
>  (if she can find him).
       ^^^          ^^^
What if *she* is the abandoner and *he* has to try to find *her*?