Gå til innhold
Arkivverket

Toppliste

Populært Innhold

Showing content with the highest reputation on 13. juli 2018 fra alle applikasjoner

  1. Ole Jon Moastuen

    To søsken (Orderløkken) reiste fra Ringebu, Oppland til Amerika i 1880 og 1883. Hvor ble de av?

    Fantastisk flott. Utrolig hva dere finner. Tusen takk 😊
    3 Poeng
  2. Egil Johannessen

    To søsken (Orderløkken) reiste fra Ringebu, Oppland til Amerika i 1880 og 1883. Hvor ble de av?

    An illustrated history of Lyon County, Minnesota, side 436 - https://archive.org/stream/illustratedhistolcm00rose#page/436/mode/2up/search/"LARS+H.+ORDLOCK"
    3 Poeng
  3. The U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current - Lenke FAG - https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/54492690 Name: Louise Ordlock Birth Date: 1877 Death Date: 1927 Cemetery: Opdal Cemetery Burial or Cremation Place: Florence, Lyon County, Minnesota, United States of America Has Bio?: N
    3 Poeng
  4. The Minnesota, Marriages Index, 1849-1950 Name: Lars Ordlock Gender: Male Marriage Date: 29 Oct 1896 Marriage Place: Lyon Co., Minnesota Spouse's Name: Louise Larson Spouse Gender: Female Event Type: Marriage FHL Film Number: 1255714
    3 Poeng
  5. The U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current - Lenke FAG - https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/54492689 Name: Lars Ordlock Birth Date: 1867 Death Date: 1937 Cemetery: Opdal Cemetery Burial or Cremation Place: Florence, Lyon County, Minnesota, United States of America Has Bio?: N
    3 Poeng
  6. Ser at Ragnhild står med etternavnet Ordlock.(Orderløkken) Finner Lars Ordlock f 1864 i Norge,i Minnesota i Census 1895. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQDX-68L
    3 Poeng
  7. Ole Jon Moastuen

    To søsken (Orderløkken) reiste fra Ringebu, Oppland til Amerika i 1880 og 1883. Hvor ble de av?

    David Ordlock https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/david-ordlock-obituary?pid=157777138&view=guestbook
    2 Poeng
  8. Torbjørn Igelkjøn

    Hvem var Anders Knudson Skilbrei, Gaular SF f. ca. 1740 sønn av?

    Når det gjeld Fjaler er inntrykket mitt at bygdebøkene har god kvalitet i forhold til mange andre bygdebøker. Med det meiner eg at trass i at dei manglar ein del opplysningar (kanskje fordi dei ikkje har greidd å kople alt?), så er det meste av det som står der rett. Det er ofte også nemnt at det var skifte, eller ein forstår det ut frå samanhengen. Desse bygdebøkene var vel som livsverk å rekne. Ragnvald Fagerheim skreiv vel desse "på si" medan han var lærar, og sonen, Magne fekk permisjon frå lærarjobben for å få verket fullført. Det som står om husmannsplassar er etter det eg har forstått skrive av Magne Fagerheim, og var ikkje ein del av det opprinnelege manuskriptet. Det desse bygdebøkene er svakast på er nok mindre husmannsplassar langt tilbake i tid eller der ein familie berre har vore ein kort periode, og dessutan er det lite og inkje å finne om dei som eigde minst, nemleg strandsitjarar, innerstar og/eller omstreifarar og deira slekt. Fattigfolk står det ikkje fullt så mykje om i kjeldene heller, og det kan vere vanskeleg å følgje folk som flytta mykje på seg eller som var ein stad berre ei kort tid. Når det gjeld omstreifarane er det vel heller ikkje så vanleg at ein finn desse omtalt i skifte. Mitt inntrykk er elles (m.a. etter å ha lese denne tråden) at bygdebøkene for Gaular (både dei gamle og dei nye) er av dårlegare kvalitet, at det manglar meir og at dei inneheld fleire feil. Dei nye bygdebøkene for Gaular er ikkje "livsverk", og dermed har det kanskje vore mindre tid til å sjekke skifte osv. Kvaliteten blir vel då heilt grei i forhold til det ein kan forvente. Sjekkar ein bygdeboka for Lavik finn ein mykje av både tull og manglar, og om ein les føreordet står det vel at ho var skriven på eit år, og m.a. basert på ein del gamle slektstavler. Det eg har sett på i denne bygdeboka er etter mi meining så dårleg at bygdeboka ikkje held mål, og er ikkje noko godt utgangspunkt når ein skal forske i det området. Elles bøyer eg meg i støvet for Lars sine evner til å finne fram i bygdebøker og skifte, og ikkje minst når det gjeld å halde styr på alle samanhengane utan at det går fullstendig i ball. Og då kan det jo hende at han også har funne mykje feil også i bygdebøkene for Fjaler.
    2 Poeng
  9. Lars Østensen

    Hvem var Anders Knudson Skilbrei, Gaular SF f. ca. 1740 sønn av?

    Du har rett når det gjelder Gaular-boka. Det mangler en arving: Her har de rett og slett glemt siste datteren som var gift med Axel Knudsen...... Jeg sliter også med skriften/skanningen i disse skiftene. Enten er skanningen for dårlig eller så er utgangspunktet de har skannet for dårlig..... Tror det kun var 3 ekteskap på Mads......
    2 Poeng
  10. Ang Ragnhild i # 26; Ser at hun står registrert med ektemann og 5 barn. http://onshus.no/getperson.php?personID=I73708&tree=Ringebuslekter
    2 Poeng
  11. Klikk på nederste lenken,så ser du omtalen! Clipping from Arlington Heights Herald - Newspapers.com https://www.newspapers.com › Arlington Heights Herald › 27 Jun 1947, Fri › Page 11 ... ring ceremony united I . , r . n t in holy matrimony Miss Jeanne Ordlock, daughter of Mr. and Mrs.Bayard Ordlock of Jeffer- son Park, and Master Sgt H. H Rotzol. Clipped from Arlington Heights Herald, 27 Jun 1947, Fri, Page 11 Clipped by chashinva – 24 Sep 2016 https://www.newspapers.com/clip/6756875/arlington_heights_herald/
    2 Poeng
  12. The U.S., Army Transport Service, Passenger Lists, 1910-1939 Name: Bayard H Ordlock Departure Date: 14 Jul 1918 Departure Place: New York, New York Residence Place: Florence, Minnesota Father: Lars Ordlock Ship: Caronia Military Unit: 3rd Rank: Private Service Number: 476512 Notes: Battery D Third Field Artillery The U.S., Army Transport Service, Passenger Lists, 1910-1939 Name: Bayard H. Ordlock Departure Date: 6 Aug 1919 Departure Place: Brest, France Arrival date: 17 Aug 1919 Arrival Place: Hoboken, New Jersey Residence Place: Florence Minnesota Father: Lars Ordlock Ship: PRESIDENT GRANT Military Unit: U. S. MIL MISSION Rank: Private Service Number: 2176512 Notes: BREST CASUAL MO 3289 (RIGIONAL)
    2 Poeng
  13. Klikk på lenken,så ser du bilde! Richard "Dick" Ordlock 1948 - 2014 Obituary Condolences Born: May 23, 1948; in Chicago Died: April 2, 2014; in Yorkville YORKVILLE – Richard "Dick" Ordlock, 65, of Yorkville, formerly of Elgin and St Charles, died peacefully at home, surrounded by family on April 2, 2014. He was born May 23, 1948, in Chicago. He served as a Lt. Col. in the Civil Air Patrol, CAP, a division of the Air Force Reserves. He received three Commander's Commendations: one for Safety Office at DuPage; work as Squadron Commander and establishing CISM (Critical Instance Stress Management Program) for Illinois. There were three unit Citations and the highest award in CAP, the Gil Rob Wilson Award. Professionally, he was a Mental Health Counselor and owner of Tricon Counseling in Carol Stream. He graduated from NIU, Air Force Squadron Officer's School and Air Command Staff College. He earned his master's at The Alfred Adler Institute in Chicago and his Ph.D. from Interfaith Seminary with a Doctor of Philosophy Pastoral Counseling Addictions Focus. He was a man of deep faith and humility, dedicating his life as an instrument for God. He had a unique talent for bringing out the best in others. In spite of chronic pain and numerous health issues during his life, he never lost his faith nor his sense of humor. On first meeting him, his outwardly grumpy exterior masked his truly infectious belly laugh, clever wit and the sparkle in his eyes. A warm man, he had an abiding love for his family and especially, grandkids. He will be dearly missed by his wife, Molly Burke, sons: Craig (Amy Marshall), Chris (Emily Miller), Todd (Cherise Kay), step children: Kelly Coleman (Gragg Pierce), Sean Coleman (Gina Buck), Erin Coleman (John Guevarra); grandkids: Aria, Christian, Cody and Brooklynn Ordlock. He was preceded in death by his parents, Erwin Ordlock and Geraldine Schulze and his birth mother, Lois Dillman. In lieu of flowers, donations to New Life Church in Yorkville or woundedwarriorproject.org would be appreciated. Visitation will be at 10 a.m., April 11, at New Life Church, 3205 Cannonball Trail, Yorkville, followed by Memorial Service at 11 a.m. Both will have ASL interpretation. Please sign the guest book at www.legacy.com/kcchronicle. Published in Kane County Chronicle on Apr. 8, 2014 Read Less http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/kcchronicle/obituary.aspx?n=richard-ordlock-dick&pid=170540132
    2 Poeng
  14. Erwin Ordlock United States Census, 1940 Name: Erwin Ordlock Event Type: Census Event Date: 1940 Event Place: Ward 38, Chicago, Chicago City, Cook, Illinois, United States Sex: Male Age: 27 Marital Status: Married Race (Original): White Race: White Relationship to Head of Household (Original): Son-In-Law Relationship to Head of Household: Son-in-law Birthplace: Minnesota Birth Year (Estimated): 1913 Last Place of Residence: Minneapolis, Minnesota Household Role Sex Age Birthplace Frederick Schulze Head Male 54 Illinois Grace Schulze Wife Female 46 Illinois Erwin Ordlock Son-in-law Male 27 Minnesota Geraldine Ordlock Daughter Female 22 Illinois https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KW11-GVT View the original document. ---- Geraldine F Ordlock United States Social Security Death Index Age: 90 Given Name: Geraldine Middle Name: F Surname: Ordlock Birth Date: 20 Dec 1917 State: Illinois Last Place of Residence: Cook, Illinois Previous Residence Postal Code: 60631 Event Date: 21 Apr 2007 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JGJ4-ZZR ---- Geraldine F. Ordlock Obituary Condolences Geraldine F. Ordlock, nee Schulze, age 89, beloved wife of the late Erwin; loving mother of Richard (Molly Burke); dear grandmother of Craig (Amy), Chris (Emily) and Todd; great-grandmother of Aria, Christian and Cody; cherished cousin of Edward (MaryAnn) Steffen. She was retired from Sears, Roebuck and Co. Visitation at the Skaja Terrace Funeral Home, 7812 N. Milwaukee Ave., Niles on Saturday 11 a.m. until time of service 1 p.m. Interment All Saints Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations to the Resurrection Life Center appreciated. Funeral info: 847-966-7302 or www.skajafuneralhomes.com Published in a Chicago Tribune Media Group Publication on Apr. 25, 2007 https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?n=geraldine-f-ordlock&pid=87542605&fhid=2129
    2 Poeng
  15. Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Illinois) 13 Jan 1971, Wednesday, Page 70
    2 Poeng
  16. Er Ancestry medlem har postet dette bildet med teksten: Lars Ordock & Louisa Larson - ingen datering av bildet.
    2 Poeng
  17. Samme som Egil har lagt inn; Ser at det er litt feil fødselsår på Lars. Lars Ordlock Birth: 1867 Death: 1937 Burial: Opdal Cemetery Florence Lyon County Minnesota, USA Edit Virtual Cemetery info [?] Created by: Suzanna Ashworth Record added: Jul 04, 2010 Find A Grave Memorial# 54492689 https://old.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=ordlock&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=54492689&df=all& ---- Louise Ordlock Birth: 1877Death: 1927 Burial: Opdal Cemetery Florence Lyon County Minnesota, USA Edit Virtual Cemetery info [?] Created by: Suzanna Ashworth Record added: Jul 04, 2010 Find A Grave Memorial# 54492690 https://old.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=ordlock&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=54492690&df=all&
    2 Poeng
  18. Bayard Herman Ordlock Illinois, Cook County Deaths Name Bayard Herman Ordlock Event Type Death Event Date 11 Jan 1971 Event Place Arlington Heights, Cook, Illinois, United States Address 1918 Warwick Lane Gender Male Age 70 Marital Status Married Race White Occupation Accountant Birth Date 24 Aug 1900 Birthplace , , Minnesota Funeral Home Mee And Rammee Burial Date 14 Jan 1971 Burial Place Elmhurst, , Illinois Cemetery Mt Emblem Father's Name Lars Ordlock Mother's Name Louise Larson Spouse's Name Marie Petersen Informant's Name Nancy K Branch Entry Number 00207 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2MF-NKPL ---- Erwin O Ordlock Illinois, Cook County Deaths Name Erwin O Ordlock Event Type Death Event Date 14 May 1980 Event Place Park Ridge, Cook, Illinois, United States Address 8125 N Elmore Gender Male Age 67 Marital Status Married Race White Occupation Truck Driver Birth Date 22 Aug 1912 Birthplace , , Minnesota Funeral Home Skaja Terrace Funeral Home Burial Date 17 May 1980 Burial Place Des Plaines, , Illinois Cemetery All Saints Father's Name Lars Ordlock Mother's Name Louise Larson Spouse's Name Geraldine Schulze Informant's Name Kathleen Sebastien Entry Number 80029097 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2MJ-NBCX
    2 Poeng
  19. The U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Church Records, 1826-1969 Name: Clara Ordlock Gender: Female Record Type: Marriage Birth Place: USA Marriage Date: 28 Jul 1919 Marriage Place: Florence, Minnesota, USA Father: Lars Ordlock Mother: Ordlock Spouse: Joe O Erickson Church Name: Opdahl Lutheran Congregation Church Location: Florence, Minnesota
    2 Poeng
  20. Han døde i 1937. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2W2-HJ75
    2 Poeng
  21. Census 1930 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X3ZV-7HF
    2 Poeng
  22. Emigrasjon Ragnhild Kraabøl - https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/8/pe00000000577267 Immigrasjon - Lenker FS: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KFD8-788 - https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:23QL-44L The Pennsylvania, Passenger and Crew Lists, 1800-1962 Name: Ragnhild Kraabol Gender: Female Nationality: Scandinavian Arrival Age: 50 Birth Date: abt 1856 Birth Place: Galdbrogsdalen rongebo, Norway Last Residence: Norway Departure Place: Liverpool, England Arrival date: 29 Oct 1906 Arrival Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Ship: Westernland
    2 Poeng
  23. Harald Jarl Runde

    Kvar vart det av Lovise Thelle, Lovise Simonsen f 1854?

    Takk for det, eit lite steg vidare. I fylgje dødsfallistene til lensmannen i Borre døydde kona til Harald Oskar Olsen, Ida Olsen den 4. april 1910. Dødsfallet vart meldt dagen etter av ei Sofie Jørgensen, kven ho var veit eg ikkje. Ein "Dr Larsen" er nemd som lækjar. Dødsårsaka var lungetæring. Arvingar var enkemanden og 2 umyndige børn. Huslyden budde elles i Nedre Keisermarkgade 8, ein einebustad. Helsing HJR
    1 Poeng
  24. Harald Jarl Runde

    Kvar vart det av Lovise Thelle, Lovise Simonsen f 1854?

    Takkar Grethe og Ann-Mary for svar og hjelp. Dødsfall: Eg har gått gjennom kyrkjebøker og lensmannsmeldingar om dødsfall og flyttemeldingar for Herøy, Borre og Horten og leitt etter avismeldingar og dødsannonser på bokhylla.no Utan å finne noko. Lovise vaks opp saman med borna til Hans og "Madam Andresen" som ho enno vert kalla på Runde. Det vert også sagt at Lovise var guvernante på fyret. Det høyrest rimeleg ut all den tid det var 2 - 3 familier på fyrstasjonen på den tida. Sidan det ikkje var fastskule på øya, heldt "fyrfolka" seg utanom om striden med omgangskule osb osb, har eg funne dokumentasjon på. Dei underviste sjølve, hadde guvernante eller lærarinne eller borna vart sende vekk til slektningar andre plassar i landet, utan at eg kjenner alle detaljane. Eg er ikkje kjend i Borre / Horten men vil tru at miljøet hjå Sjøforsvaret var så lite at Lovise i 1910 framleis var godt orientert om "liv og lagnad" og at ho også kanskje kjende Harald Oskar Olsen frå barndomstida. Kona til Harald Oskar Olsen, Ida Olsen, døydde i alle fall av lungetæring den 04.04.1910. Dato for folketeljinga i 1910 har eg ikkje funne så eg veit ikkje om Louise kom som Husbestyrerinne før eller etter Ida døydde. Så spørsmålet er kva tid ho flytte frå Runde etter Knut døydde, kvar ho vart etter ft i 1910 av og kva tid ho døydde. Eg går ut frå at ho etter giftarmålet med Knut kalla seg Lovise / Louise Simonsen, eg har i alle fall ikkje funne noko anna namn. Folketradisjonen på øya Runde teier også så langt eg kjenner til. Om Runde fyr: Sjå https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runde_fyr
    1 Poeng
  25. Hjarteleg takk til Ann-Mary for siste merknaden om denne bustaden! Det er forresten pussig, og det skjer rett som det er, når du, Ann-Mary, legg inn kommentarar på det eine eller andre tema hjå meg, får eg IKKJE den foreskrivne meldingi frå Brukarforum om «nytt innlegg», og det til tross for at eg abonnerer på emnet! Det skjer ikkje kvar gong, men av og til. Eg fekk meldingar om dei to innleggi over (innlegg #2 og #3), men altso ikkje om innlegg #5! Men eg oppdaga jo meldingi likevel og takkar på ny for framifrå bistand om denne huslyden!
    1 Poeng
  26. Ole Jon Moastuen

    To søsken (Orderløkken) reiste fra Ringebu, Oppland til Amerika i 1880 og 1883. Hvor ble de av?

    Lars Ordlock LARS H. ORDLOCK (1888) is half owner of the Hynden store in Florence and is actively engaged in the handling of groceries, dry goods and shoes. The pro- prietors also handle fresh meats and buy and sell cream. Lars Ordlock was born in Ringbo, Nor- way, June 13, 1864, a son of Hans and Mariet (Bredevien) Ordlock. He attended school in the land of his birth until six- teen years of age, coming then to America and locating in Goodhue county, Minne- sota. There he worked as a farm hand until 1888, when he came to Lyon county. He worked in Tracy three months and then went to Custer township to work on a farm. During the next three or four years Lars worked in and around Bala- ton and Garvin at different pursuits, and for six months being employed in the creamery at Balaton and for a year drill- ing wells in the vicinity. The balance of the time was spent in farming and in threshing in the falls. For nine months our subject drove the stage between Currie and Tracy. About this time Mr. Ordlock made his first investment in land, buying 140 acres in Murray county, but continuing to work in the vicinity of Garvin. October 29, 1896, Lars Ordlock mar- ried Louisa Larson, a native of Fillmore county and a daughter of Bure Larson. The young married couple located in Coon Creek township, where Lars farmed for the next thirteen years. Then he sold and moved to Florence to engage in his pres- ent business. While a resident of Custer township Mr. Ordlock was a school officer two years. Mrs. Lars Ordlock was born June 19, 1877. She and her husband are mem- bers of the Norwegian Lutheran church. They have three children: Clara, born August 28, 1897; Bayard, born August 24, 1900; and Lillie, born August 6, 1909. http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/arthur-p-rose/an-illustrated-history-of-lyon-county-minnesota-eso/page-72-an-illustrated-history-of-lyon-county-minnesota-eso.shtml
    1 Poeng
  27. Svein Davidsen

    DNA-analyse - endå ein gong... - kva skal eg gjera?

    Lars, Velkommen til vår spesielle haplogruppe N. Det er ikke så mange av oss i Norge, ca 4-5%, mens f.eks. Finland har ca 60%. Så vidt jeg kan se fra dine innlegg har du bare fått vite at du er Hg N-M231, som er helt nede i roten av Hg N treet. Når du har fått resultatene for dine 67 markører STR test kan vi sikkert nok plasere deg høyere opp i treet. Jeg har vedlagt en kopi av Georg Dunkel's fantastisk Hg N tre hvor du kan se hvordan de største grenene sprer seg over hele Norden og de Baltiske statene. Den farvede ringen midt i treet viser min undergruppe, Hg N-FGC14542, hvor vi har flere norske aner fra 1400-1500 tallet fra Buskerud, Vestfold, etc. FGC14542 er en undergruppe av L550 som har blitt diskutert tidligere i denne tråden. Da L550 mutasjonen hendte for ca 3000 år siden er det usansynlig at det er menn i dag som har L550 som terminal SNP. I og med at SNP mutasjonene hender, på gjennomsnitt, hver 6-8 generasjon, ca 155 år, har det vært tid for mange flere mutasjoner, og fra L550 er det minst 7 nye undergrupper hvor de kunne ha havnet. Lars, meld deg inn på FTDNA's Norges Prosject, https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/norway/about/background, og la oss vite når dine 67 STR resultater har blitt satt inn så vi kan hjelpe deg å finne din plass på Hg N treet. Jeg kan ikke slutte dette innlegget uten en liten kommentar til Ivar Moe's innlegg ovenfor. Jeg er ikke helt sikker på om Ivar's problem med DNA testing er kostnaden eller vitenskapen. Selvsagt er noen av testene forsatt ganske dyre, men de er mye mye billigere nå enn da jeg tok min første DNA test for 13 år siden, og med flere firmaer i bransjen er det konkurranse og prisene er på vei nedover hele tiden. En trenger heller ikke å starte med de dyreste testene, for mindre enn USD100 er det mange tester som vil gi mye verdifull informasjon. Ivar nevner også at det må være 100 000 av testere før en kan få noe ut av testene. Selvsagt enig med det, men da vi alleredde har databaser med over 1 millioner resultater har vi allerede passert det tidspunktet.
    1 Poeng
  28. Hjarteleg takk til Ann-Mary for nye spennande innlegg! Med opplysningane om søsteri og at faren heitte Ole Kntuson, finn eg denne barnedåpen i Bolsøy: Gjertrud, fødd 21.7.1821, døypt 2.9.1821, dotter av husmann Ole Knutson Gjertøen og kona Mari Madsdotter: https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/16058/10 Og då finn eg òg denne dåpen i Veøy: Anna, fødd 14.11.1818, døypt 13.12.1818, dotter av Ole Knutson Westad og Marie Madsdotter Westad: https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/16045/6 Ein yngre bror Knut Lorentz er fødd i Bolsøy 12.6.1826, døypt 2.7.1826. Ogso då er foreldri plassfolk på Gjertøen: https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/16058/30 Dette tyder at Gjertøen må vera ein HUSMANNSPLASS i Bolsøy, men under kva for ein gard?? AHA: I 1910 ser eg at Hjertøen er bnr. 11 av gnr. 25 Moldegaard i Bolsøy, so då har me svaret!! Då er med andre ord problemet løyst, og eg er kjempenøgd! Ein ny kjempetakk for framifrå bistand til løysing av denne utfordringi!
    1 Poeng
  29. Lars Østensen

    Hvem var Anders Knudson Skilbrei, Gaular SF f. ca. 1740 sønn av?

    Tydelig at de ikke har hatt tid til å gå gjennom alt materialet, men skiftene er helt essensielle å gå opp før gard og ættesoga skrives.
    1 Poeng
  30. Rune Thorstensen

    Hvem var Anders Knudson Skilbrei, Gaular SF f. ca. 1740 sønn av?

    Ja, det er åpenbart mye feil, særlig i gamle bygdebøker som ble til før den digitale tidsalderen satt inn. Dessuten er jo vi mennesker kjent for å ta noen snarveier av og til. Nå er det vel kanskje en liten mulighet for at Peder Haldorsens sønn Haldor og stesønnene døde etter 1701 og at han fikk sønnen Erich senere. Døtrene kan jo være født før 1701, men de ble jo ikke nevnt i manntallene. Men det forklarer jo ikke hvorfor bygdebokforfatteren evt ikke har fanget dem opp. Uansett, feil er det mye av og det er utrolig flott at noen, som i dette tilfellet du Lars, klarer å avdekke noen av dem. Så får vi bare håpe at dersom det kommer nye oppdaterte bøker for området, at de klarer å fange opp dette.
    1 Poeng
  31. Gunnar Sigdestad

    Beskrivelse av møllebruk

    Som du ser, har eg lagt merknadene direkte i innlegg 16.
    1 Poeng
  32. Lois Ordlock Birth: Apr. 25, 1927 Chicago Cook County Illinois, USA Death: Dec. 7, 2013 Anaheim Orange County California, USA Wife of Bayard Ordlock, mother of David Glenn (Deceased), Donna Pruett (Buck), Jacqueline Kirk, and Derek Ordlock (Shirley). Teacher, mentor, golfer, card sharp. Actual DOB unknown to contributor so am using David's, with year approximate. Burial: Unknown Edit Virtual Cemetery info [?] Created by: Alana Carson Record added: Apr 18, 2014 Find A Grave Memorial# 128159338 https://old.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=ordlock&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=128159338&df=all&
    1 Poeng
  33. ---- Bayard M Ordlock United States World War II Army Enlistment Records Name Bayard M Ordlock Name (Original) ORDLOCK BAYARD M Event Type Military Service Event Date 03 Aug 1944 Term of Enlistment Enlistment for the duration of the War or other emergency, plus six months, subject to the discretion of the President or otherwise according to law Event Place Ft Sheridan, Illinois, United States Race White Citizenship Status citizen Birth Year 1926 Birthplace LOUISIANA Education Level 3 years of high school Civilian Occupation Toolmakers and die sinkers and setters Marital Status Single, without dependents Military Rank Private Army Branch Air Corps Army Component Reserves - exclusive of Regular Army Reserve and Officers of the Officers Reserve Corps on active duty under the Thomason Act (Officers and Enlisted Men -- O.R.C. and E.R.C., and Nurses-Reserve Status) Source Reference Enlisted Reserve or Medical Administrative Corps (MAC) Officer Serial Number 16188368 Affiliate ARC Identifier 1263923 Box Film Number 02312.88 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:K8GC-PZ6 ---- Bayard M Ordlock United States Public Records Name Bayard M Ordlock Also Known As Bayard M Ordiock Residence Date 01 Jan 1994-01 May 1998 Residence Place Chico, California, United States Birth Date 09 Apr 1926 Address Chico, California 95926 Address Date 01 Jan 1994-01 May 1998 2nd Address Anaheim, California 92806 2nd Address Date 02 Feb 1991-01 Jul 2008 3rd Address Anaheim, California 92806 3rd Address Date 01 Sep 1970-31 Dec 1996 Possible Relatives David G Ordlock, Derek Scott Ordlock, Glenn David Ordlock, Jacqueline L Ordlock, Lois E Ordlock, Mahlon Baynard Ordlock Record Number 196411086 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KB43-QN7 ---- Bayard Ordlock mentioned in the record of David Ordlock Name Bayard Ordlock gender Unknown Son David Ordlock Other information in the record of David Ordlock from United States, GenealogyBank Obituaries Deceased Name David Ordlock Event Type Obituary Event Date 25 May 2012 Event Place Santa Ana, California, United States Gender Male Relationship to Deceased Deceased Birth Date 25 Apr 1955 Birthplace , , Illinois Death Date 13 May 2012 Others on Record Lois Ordlock Unknown Female Donna Pruett Unknown Female Rex Pruett Unknown Male Jacqueline Kirk Unknown Female Derek Ordlock Unknown Male Shirley Ordlock Unknown Female Annie Unknown Female Mark Unknown Male Kevin Unknown Male Kristen Unknown Female Cole Unknown Male Cole Unknown Male Ethan Unknown Male Erika Unknown Female Andrew Unknown Male https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QV56-74YD ---- Klikk på lenken,så ser du bilde. David Glenn Ordlock Birth: Apr. 25, 1955 Chicago Cook County Illinois, USA Death: May 12, 2012 Anaheim Orange County California, USA Son of Bayard and Lois Ordlock, brother to Donna Pruett, Jacqueline Kirk, and Derek Ordlock. Graduated Western States College of Law. Loved football, golf, and family (not in that order), fearless and loyal friend. Burial: Unknown Specifically: Disposition of remains is sadly unknown by contributor Edit Virtual Cemetery info [?] Created by: Alana Carson Record added: Mar 13, 2014 Find A Grave Memorial# 126291168 https://old.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=ordlock&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=126291168&df=all& Donna Ordlock Pruett er på Facebook. Fra Anaheim,California. Bosatt Palm Desert,California.
    1 Poeng
  34. Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Illinois) 16 May 1980, Friday, Page 67
    1 Poeng
  35. Bayard Ordlock United States Census, 1940 Name: Bayard Ordlock Event Type: Census Event Date: 1940 Event Place: Ward 38, Chicago, Chicago City, Cook, Illinois, United States Sex: Male Age: 39 Marital Status: Married Race (Original): White Race: White Relationship to Head of Household (Original): Head Relationship to Head of Household: Head Birthplace: Minnesota Birth Year (Estimated): 1901 Last Place of Residence: Same House Household Role Sex Age Birthplace Bayard Ordlock Head Male 39 Minnesota Marie Ordlock Wife Female 44 Minnesota Jeanne Ordlock Daughter Female 16 Minnesota Bayard M Ordlock Son Male 13 Louisiana https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:K4MS-W65 View the original document. ---- United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Lois E. ORDLOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 06-74539. Decided: July 24, 2008 Before:  HARRY PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and FERDINAND F. FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.Clayton J. Vreeland, Vreeland Law Firm, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, for the petitioner-appellant. Teresa E. McLaughlin and Rachel I. Wollitzer, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent-appellee. Lois E. Ordlock appeals the Tax Court's determination that she is ineligible for a refund under 26 U.S.C. § 6015 1 for payments on her husband's tax debt paid from their community property.   After reviewing the language and legislative history of § 6015, we affirm the decision of the Tax Court. BACKGROUND Lois Ordlock and her husband, Bayard M. Ordlock, live in California, a community property state.   The Ordlocks filed joint federal income tax returns in California for the years 1982, 1983, and 1984.   Because all three returns understated the Ordlocks' tax liabilities, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service made several assessments of additional amounts of tax, penalties, and interest owed by the Ordlocks for those three years. Over the next two decades, the Ordlocks made several payments on the tax debt.   Except for one payment of $2,485 made from Mrs. Ordlock's separate property,2 all payments and credits applied to the couple's tax debt were made from community property.3  The Ordlocks remained married at the time all payments were made, and are still married today. On March 4, 1999, Mrs. Ordlock filed a request under § 6015(b) for “innocent spouse” relief from joint and several liability on the tax debt for the years 1982, 1983, and 1984.   On July 26, 2002, the Commissioner mailed Mrs. Ordlock a Notice of Determination that granted her relief under § 6015(b) of $160,912 for all three years.   In relevant part, the Notice stated: Subject:  Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability under Section 6015. Dear Mrs. Ordlock: We've made a decision about your appeal request for innocent spouse relief․ We call the decision we made a determination.   When we abate a tax or penalties or interest we call it relief from the liability․ Internal Revenue Code Section 6015 allows us to abate in full or in part a tax liability when we determine that someone qualifies as an innocent-spouse. We've determined, for the above tax year(s), that: We find you eligible for relief under Section 6015(b) in the amount of $160,912.00. The Notice further indicated that Mrs. Ordlock's remaining tax liability for 1982, 1983, and 1984 was zero.   The Notice did not address whether Mrs. Ordlock was eligible for any refund of the amount that she previously paid. Mrs. Ordlock sought review of the Notice, and the parties eventually decided to submit the case for decision to the Tax Court.   The parties agreed that Mrs. Ordlock was entitled to relief from joint and several liability under § 6015(b) for the years 1982, 1983, and 1984.   The parties also agreed that Mrs. Ordlock was entitled to a refund of $2,485 for the payment on the tax debt that she made with her separate property.   Their dispute centered on whether Mrs. Ordlock was entitled to a refund of the payments the Ordlocks made from community property.   Mrs. Ordlock argued that § 6015 requires the payments she made from community property to be allocated between herself and her husband, despite the continued existence of the marital community.   The Commissioner argued that § 6015 does not preempt community property law for purposes of calculating refunds. On January 19, 2006, the Tax Court issued its opinion in favor of the Commissioner.  Ordlock v. Comm'r, 126 T.C. 47, 2006 WL 148761 (2006).   On June 20, 2006, the Tax Court entered its final decision, incorporating its January opinion.   On September 11, 2006, Mrs. Ordlock filed her timely notice of appeal to this court.   See § 7483. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW  We have jurisdiction over all final decisions of the Tax Court under § 7482(a)(1).   We review the Tax Court's interpretation of the tax code de novo.  Biehl v. Comm'r, 351 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir.2003). I. Federal Income Tax Law and California Community Property Law Married couples who file joint returns are generally jointly and severally liable for the full amount of tax due on their combined incomes, even though one spouse may have earned more than the other.   See § 6013(d)(3);  Ness v. Comm'r, 954 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir.1992).   Married couples may avoid joint liability by filing separate returns and paying tax at the rates applicable to married persons filing separate returns. § 1(d). Under § 6321, if a taxpayer does not pay an assessed tax after a notice and demand, a lien in favor of the United States in the amount of the delinquency arises “upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal” belonging to the taxpayer.   E.g., United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 276, 122 S.Ct. 1414, 152 L.Ed.2d 437 (2002).   It is well established that state law controls the determination of the nature of the legal interest the taxpayer has in property for purposes of § 6321.  In re McIntyre, 222 F.3d 655, 658 (9th Cir.2000). In California, all property acquired by a married person during the marriage is generally considered community property.   See Cal. Fam.Code § 760.   Under § 910(a) of the California Family Code, community property is liable not only for the joint debts of the couple, but also for the separate liabilities of one spouse: Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt. This state law reflects the principle articulated by the California Supreme Court that “the policy of protecting the ․ creditors [of a spouse] outweighs the policy of protecting family income․” Babb v. Schmidt, 496 F.2d 957, 959 (9th Cir.1974) (quoting Weinberg v. Weinberg, 67 Cal.2d 557, 63 Cal.Rptr. 13, 432 P.2d 709, 711 (1967)). II. Innocent Spouse Relief Because § 6013(d) makes individuals who file joint tax returns strictly liable for the income tax debts of their spouses, Congress has long provided limited “innocent spouse” relief for certain spouses who are jointly and severally liable for tax liability stemming from a joint return. Congress first provided “innocent spouse” relief in § 6013(e) of the 1954 Code, which was enacted in 1971.   See Act of January 12, 1971, Pub.L. No. 91-679, § 1, 84 Stat. 2063 (1971).   In 1998, Congress repealed § 6013(e) and replaced it with § 6015, which provides expanded forms of innocent spouse relief.   See Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub L. No. 105-206, § 3201, 112 Stat. 685, 740 (1998) (“the 1998 Act”).   Section 6015 replaced § 6013(e) for any liability for tax arising after July 22, 1998 and for any liability for tax remaining unpaid as of that date.4 To qualify for innocent spouse relief, the taxpayer must show that the couple filed a joint return, that the return contained an understatement attributable to “erroneous items” of the other spouse, and that in signing the return, the “innocent spouse” did not know or have reason to know of the understatement.   See § 6015(b).5  The taxpayer must also show it would be inequitable to hold her liable. § 6015(b)(1)(D). A taxpayer can qualify for innocent spouse relief under one of three provisions of § 6015:  § (b), § (c), or § (f).  Section 6015(b) is available to all joint filers.  Section 6015(c) applies only to those taxpayers who are no longer married, legally separated, or not living together.  Section 6015(f) provides for selective equitable relief for those taxpayers who do not meet the requirements of § (b) or § (c). If a taxpayer is found eligible for innocent spouse relief, the taxpayer may then seek a refund for any payments that the taxpayer made on the non-innocent spouse's tax debt.   See § 6015(g).6 III. Rules of Statutory Construction Whether § 6015 preempts community property law for purposes of calculating innocent spouse refunds is an issue of first impression that depends upon statutory construction.  The “starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.”  Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc., 437 U.S. 322, 330, 98 S.Ct. 2370, 57 L.Ed.2d 239 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted).  “In ascertaining the plain meaning of a statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole.”  McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 139, 111 S.Ct. 1737, 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) (quotation marks and brackets omitted).   Where the words of a statute are not conclusive as to congressional intent, they should be placed in their proper context by resort to legislative history.  League to Save Lake Tahoe, Inc. v. Trounday, 598 F.2d 1164, 1172 (9th Cir.1979).  “Because domestic relations are preeminently matters of state law ․ Congress, when it passes general legislation, rarely intends to displace statutory authority in this area.”  Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 587, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 104 L.Ed.2d 675 (1989).   Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that federal law supplants community property law only where the congressional intent to accomplish such a result is clear and unequivocal.   See id.;   Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 581, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979). IV. Statutory Analysis The question before us is whether Congress, in enacting § 6015, intended to preempt California community property law with respect to an innocent spouse's right to a refund.   The answer depends on our interpretation of certain language in § 6015(a) and § 6015(g), the refund provision.   We address each section in turn. A. Section 6015(a) Section 6015(a) provides: (a) In general.-Notwithstanding § 6013(d)(3)- (1) an individual who has made a joint return may elect to seek relief under the procedures prescribed under subsection (b);  and (2) if such individual is eligible to elect the application of subsection (c), such individual may, in addition to any election under paragraph (1), elect to limit such individual's liability for any deficiency with respect to such joint return in the manner prescribed under subsection (c). Any determination under this section shall be made without regard to community property laws. (Emphasis added.)  Mrs. Ordlock argues that the final sentence of § 6015(a) is comprehensive and applies to all sections of § 6015, including § 6015(g).  She contends that this broad statement demonstrates Congress's clear intent to preempt community property law for the purpose of calculating refunds. The Commissioner argues that the final sentence of § 6015(a) does not demonstrate Congress's intent to preempt community property law with respect to all subsections of § 6015.   Rather, Congress intended that the final sentence of § 6015(a) apply only to determinations made under § 6015.   According to the Commissioner, the plain language of § 6015(a) indicates that the only “determination” within the meaning of § 6015 is the initial decision that a taxpayer is an innocent spouse.   Whether that innocent spouse is then eligible for a refund, however, is a separate question governed by the applicable law of the state in which that spouse resides.   In other words, the allowance of a refund is not a determination, and thus is not affected by the directive found in § 6015(a) to disregard community property laws. We agree with the Commissioner. First, the root word “determine” (or some conjugation of it) appears five times in § 6015.7  In each instance, it is used to refer to the Commissioner's decision that the petitioning spouse is an innocent spouse who is eligible for some degree of relief from joint and several tax liability.   Thus, it appears that this decision is the “determination” that the final sentence of § 6015(a) contemplates should be made “without regard to community property laws.” By contrast, the word “determine” is absent from § 6015(g)(1), the refund provision of the statute.   Instead, § 6015(g)(1) states that any “credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.” (emphasis added).   This is a significant distinction.   See Huffman v. Comm'r, 978 F.2d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir.1992) (“Words with a fixed legal or judicially settled meaning, where the context so requires, must be presumed to have been used in that sense.”).   Presumably, if Congress had intended the final sentence of § 6015(a) to preempt community property laws with respect to the issuance of a refund, it would have clarified that the decision to make such an issuance was a “determination” within the meaning of the statute.8 We find that the text of the statute provides, at the very least, some indication that Congress used the word “determination” in the final sentence of § 6015(a) to refer only to the Commissioner's decision regarding relief from joint and several liability. We also find that the legislative history of the statute supports this interpretation. From the time of the first enactment of “innocent spouse” relief under § 6013(e) in 1971, there was language that preempted the operation of community property law, but only for the limited purpose of “the determination of the spouse to whom such items of gross income ․ are attributable.” 9  This makes sense:  because community property law contemplates that property acquired by the couple during marriage belongs to the marital community, the IRS must ignore community property law when deciding whether the “items” listed on the couple's tax return are the responsibility of an individual spouse.   Thus, the “determination” long required by § 6013(e) suspended community property law solely for purposes of determining which spouse was responsible for the “item” on the federal income tax return that gave rise to the tax liability.10 The final sentence of § 6015(a) did not appear in the statute until Congress passed the 1998 Act, expanding the availability of innocent spouse relief.   To understand why Congress replaced the old language with the new, we turn to the House and Senate bills. The House bill would have liberalized the availability of innocent spouse relief by repealing understatement thresholds and by making relief available and apportionable to the extent that the spouse lacked knowledge or reason to know about the understatement.   Notably, the House bill would have carried forward the old language of § 6013(e) providing that “the determination of the spouse to whom items of gross income (other than gross income from property) are attributable shall be made without regard to community property laws.”   H.R.Rep. No. 105-364 (Pt. 1), at 19. Like the House bill, the Senate bill was designed to make innocent spouse relief more widely available.   The Senate, however, proposed two completely new approaches for expanding relief.   First, the Senate bill would have allowed certain spouses to elect “separate liability relief,” which, in essence, would retroactively place the spouses on a separate-return footing.   Under this form of relief, detailed rules and regulations were required to allocate almost all items on the tax return between the spouses.   Second, the Senate bill contained a limited form of equitable relief.   H.R. 2676, § 3201(a), as amended and passed by the Senate on May 7, 1998, reprinted in 144 Cong. Rec. S8620 (1998). The Senate's proposal to allow separate-liability elections introduced additional complexity into the process of allocating items between spouses.   Accordingly, because there were more scenarios in which the IRS would have to label an item on a tax return as belonging to an individual spouse instead of the “community,” there were more instances in which the IRS would have to disregard community property laws.   As a result, broader language was required than was found in the House bill, which preempted community property laws only for purposes of allocating gross income between spouses.   Accordingly, the Senate bill included the language now found in the final sentence of § 6015(a). When the differences between the House and Senate bills were reconciled in conference, the final version included the House's provision for greater general innocent spouse relief (§ 6015(b)), the Senate's provision for separate liability relief (§ 6015(c)), and the Senate's provision for equitable relief (§ 6015(f)).  Because the Senate's provisions for separate liability and equitable relief survived conference, the broad language of § 6015(a) also made it into the final version of the statute. This history strongly suggests that the final sentence of § 6015(a) was drafted to account for the expanded means of allocating items between spouses to determine eligibility for innocent spouse relief-not to expand the preemption of community property laws to the issuance of refunds.   Significantly, nothing in the legislative reports suggests that Congress intended to set aside state law ownership interests in property for refund purposes.   To the contrary, the Senate report makes it clear that community property law was to be preempted only in the context of allocating items between spouses so as to place them on a separate return basis. See S.Rep. No. 105-174, at 56, 57 (1998) (defining the scope of the preemption of community property laws as applicable with respect to “[t]he allocation of items”).   Similarly, the Conference report does not acknowledge any difference between the House and Senate bills regarding the suspension of community property laws. In conclusion, after considering the disputed language in the context of the statute as a whole, we hold that the final sentence of § 6015(a) does not preempt community property law for purposes of the issuance of innocent spouse refunds. B. Section 6015(g) Mrs. Ordlock also relies on § 6015(g), the refund provision itself, as evidence that Congress intended to preempt California community property law with respect to the issuance of refunds.  Section 6015(g) provides: (g) Credits and refunds.- (1) In general.-Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than sections 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section. (2) Res judicata.-In the case of any election under subsection (b) or (c) or of any request for equitable relief under subsection (f), if a decision of a court in any prior proceeding for the same taxable year has become final, such decision shall be conclusive except with respect to the qualification of the individual for relief which was not an issue in such proceeding.   The exception contained in the preceding sentence shall not apply if the court determines that the individual participated meaningfully in such prior proceeding. (3) Credit and refund not allowed under subsection (c).-No credit or refund shall be allowed as a result of an election under subsection (c). (Emphasis added.)  Mrs. Ordlock argues that the “notwithstanding any other rule of law” language means that state community property laws should be disregarded in calculating the proper refund.   The Commissioner argues that Mrs. Ordlock's interpretation ignores both common sense and the context of the statute.   Again, we agree with the Commissioner. First, we turn to the disputed language.   Although sections of a statute generally should be read to give effect, if possible, to every clause, we have previously stated that the phrase “notwithstanding any other law or rule of law” should not always be read literally.   See, e.g., Or. Natural Res. Council v. Thomas, 92 F.3d 792, 796-97 (9th Cir.1996);  E.P. Paup Co. v. Director, OWCP, 999 F.2d 1341, 1348 (9th Cir.1993);  Kee Leasing Co. v. McGahan (In re Glacier Bay), 944 F.2d 577, 582 (9th Cir.1991).   Here, construing the “notwithstanding” phrase of § 6015(g) as a broad preemption clause would mean that all state property laws in community property states and common law states should be ignored in calculating refunds.   Moreover, as the Tax Court majority noted, “[e]ven if limited to community property provisions, [Mrs. Ordlock's] position leaves us with no law or resource to define the ownership of the payments made ․ on the tax liabilities for the years at issue.”  126 T.C. at 56. Because it is unlikely that Congress intended the “notwithstanding any other rule law of law” phrase to be a broad, catch-all preemption clause, we examine its context and its history of the phrase to derive its meaning. First, we note that the “notwithstanding” phrase does not appear in isolation.   Rather, it is qualified by a parenthetical:  “notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than sections 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122 ) ․” § 6015(g)(1) (emphasis added).   Accordingly, the “notwithstanding phrase” is subject to certain exceptions, we examine those exceptions to see if we can carve out the “general.”   Sections 6511 and 6512 pertain to statutes of limitations on the allowance of a credit or refund.   See §§ 6511 & 6512(b).  Sections 7121 and 7122 establish the finality of closing agreements and compromises entered into with the IRS. See §§ 7121 & 7122.   Thus, these statutes have something in common:  they all bar certain innocent spouses from refund eligibility under various provisions of the tax code. When we juxtapose these statutes with the broad “notwithstanding any other law or rule of law language,” we begin to discern its meaning.   In drafting this language, Congress wanted certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code barring refund eligibility- §§ 6511, 6512, 7121, and 7122-to remain in effect.   Congress, however, did not want “other” laws or rules of law to bar innocent spouses from refund eligibility, and it drafted broad language to that effect. The Commissioner argues that the “other rule of law” that Congress was concerned about was the doctrine of “res judicata.”   We find the Commissioner's argument persuasive for two main reasons.   First, § 6015(g)(2), which restricts the application of § 6015(g)(1), is entitled “Res judicata.” § 6015(g)(2).   This is good indication Congress had res judicata in mind as it was drafting the refund provision.   Second, there is a long history of tax statutes granting some transitional relief from res judicata in connection with the enactment and amendment of the “innocent spouse” statutes.11 These statutes indicate that the “law or rule of law” Congress was contemplating when it began inserting such language into the innocent spouse statute had nothing to do with community property.   Instead, Congress wanted to avoid the “law” of res judicata, while still respecting other limits on refunds that appear throughout the Internal Revenue Code. We acknowledge that the “notwithstanding any other law or rule of law” language is far from transparent.   However, we find the Commissioner's contextual and historical interpretation of this phrase more persuasive than Mrs. Ordlock's far-reaching one.   Accordingly, we do not read into the “notwithstanding” language of § 6015(g)(1) a mandate preempting the operation of community laws in making refunds.   It is far more likely that Congress meant to avoid certain bars to refund eligibility while still respecting others, and used the expansive “notwithstanding any law or rule of law” language to achieve that goal. On a final note, we observe that Congress demonstrated its knowledge of the community property law implications of innocent spouse relief in other parts of § 6015.   For example, in § 6015(d), Congress provided several rules for allocating items for purposes of determining eligibility for relief.   Section 6015(d) also authorized the IRS to write additional allocation rules if necessary. However, no part of § 6015 made provisions for assigning refund payments between spouses if community property laws were not to apply.   This silence speaks volumes.   The process of assigning the economic sources of the payments made by Mrs. Ordlock and her husband would likely involve a complex factual analysis.   It would also put the IRS in a different position than any other creditor collecting on the personal debts of a married taxpayer residing in California.   See Cal. Fam.Code § 910.   The absence of any legislative history addressing this issue is further indication that Congress did not intend to preempt community property law for refund purposes. CONCLUSION Nothing in § 6015 clearly preempts California community property law with respect to an innocent spouse's entitlement to a refund for a community property payment on the non-innocent spouse's federal income tax liability.   Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the Tax Court. FOOTNOTES 1.  Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.). 2.  See Cal. Fam.Code § 770(a) (“Separate property of a married person includes all of the following:  (1) All property owned by the person before marriage;  (2) All property acquired by the person after marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent;  (3) The rents, issues, and profits of the property described in this section.”). 3.  See Cal. Fam.Code § 760 (“Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property.”). 4.  Although the liability in this case arose prior to enactment of § 6015, § 6015 applies here because the liability remained unpaid on the date of enactment. 5.  The 1971 version of the statute listed very similar criteria.   In fact, the only significant difference between the 1971 version and the 1998 version is that the 1998 version eliminates the requirement that the understatement be “substantial.”   See Guth v. Comm'r, 897 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1990) (finding under the 1971 Act that “[t]he taxpayer must show that the couple filed a joint return, that the return contained a substantial tax understatement attributable to the other spouse's errors, and that in signing the return, the ‘innocent spouse’ did not know or have reason to know of the substantial understatement”). 6.  Section 6015(g) was not enacted until 2000.   It replaced the language regarding refunds from § 6015(e)(3) of the 1998 Act, as amended.   See Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763.As the original House report explains, the refund provision allows the court to “order refunds as appropriate where it determines the spouse qualifies for relief and an overpayment exists as a result of the innocent spouse qualifying for such relief.”  H.R.Rep. No. 105-364 (Pt. 1), at 61 (1997).   This language demonstrates that the authority to issue a refund flows from the determination of relief from joint and several liability. 7.  It appears four times in § 6015(e) and once in § 6015(g)(2).   In § 6015(e), which governs petitions for review by the Tax Court of determinations of relief from joint and several liability, the word “determination” is used three times to refer to the IRS's determination (or final determination) of relief.   See §§ 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(I);  6015(e)(5) (twice).   The word “determine” is also used in § 6015(e) in granting the Tax Court jurisdiction to review the IRS's determination of relief.   See § 6015(e)(1)(A).“Determine” is used one last time, in § 6015(g)(2).   That provision, however, merely addresses the res judicata effect of prior proceedings for innocent spouse relief from joint and several liability-which turns in part on whether the Tax Court “determines” that the individual participated meaningfully in the prior proceeding.   See § 6015(g)(2). 8.  And, as Tax Court Judge Thornton explained in his concurrence, the allowance of a refund or credit is not technically “determined” under § 6015;  it is decided under §§ 6401 and 6402, which govern overpayments.   See Ordlock, 126 T.C. at 69-71.Moreover, the Notice of Determination issued to Mrs. Ordlock provides additional evidence that the IRS uses the word “determination” as a term of art in the innocent spouse context.   The Notice of Determination explicitly states that the decision regarding eligibility for innocent spouse status is called a determination. 9.  This language, first placed in § 6013(e)(2)(a) by the 1971 Act, see 84 Stat. 2063, was moved to 6013(e)(5) as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-369, 424, 98 Stat. 494, 801-02. 10.  Mrs. Ordlock asserts that, under the prior version of the statute, the Commissioner would issue community property refunds for tax overpayments to California innocent spouses.   We have found no authority supporting that assertion. 11.  For example, § 2114 of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 04-455, 90 Stat. 1520, 1907 (1976), amended the effective date of provisions of the 1971 Act to allow the refund of any overpayment to taxpayers to whom the application of § 6013(e) “is prevented by res judicata ․ without regard to such rule of law.” (emphasis added).Additionally, § 6004 of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100-647, 102 Stat. 3342, 3685, amended the effective date of provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494, 801-02, to allow for the making of refunds resulting from relief from liability to innocent spouses “notwithstanding any law or rule of law (including res judicata).” (emphasis added). PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1220661.html
    1 Poeng
  36. Lars Ordlock Minnesota State Census, 1895 Name Lars Ordlock Event Place Chester township, Lyon, Minnesota Age (Original) 31y Birth Year (Estimated) 1864 Birthplace Norway Race (Original) W Gender Male Household Role Sex Age Birthplace Lars Ordlock M 31y Norway Finger P Halstenrud M 28y Norway Christena Halstenrud F 24y Minnesota https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQDX-68L View the original document. ---- Lars Brellock United States Census, 1900 Name Lars Brellock Event Type Census Event Year 1900 Event Place Coon Creek & Lyons Townships Russell village, Lyon, Minnesota, United States Gender Male Age 35 Marital Status Married Race White Race (Original) W Relationship to Head of Household Head Relationship to Head of Household (Original) Head Years Married 4 Birth Date Jun 1865 Birthplace Norway Marriage Year (Estimated) 1896 Immigration Year 1881 Father's Birthplace Norway Mother's Birthplace Norway Household Role Sex Age Birthplace Lars Brellock Head M 35 Norway Louise Brellock Wife F 23 Minnesota Clarah Brellock Daughter F 3 Minnesota Luis Anderson Servant M 24 Minnesota https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M9ST-GY7 View the original document. ---- Lars Ordlock United States Census, 1910 Name Lars Ordlock Event Type Census Event Date 1910 Event Place Coon Creek, Lyon, Minnesota, United States Gender Male Age 45 Marital Status Married Race White Race (Original) White Relationship to Head of Household Head Relationship to Head of Household (Original) Head Birth Year (Estimated) 1865 Birthplace Norway Immigration Year 1880 Father's Birthplace Norway Mother's Birthplace Norway Sheet Letter B Sheet Number 8 Household Role Sex Age Birthplace Lars Ordlock Head M 45 Norway Louise Ordlock Wife F 33 Minnesota Lillie Ordlock Daughter F 1 Minnesota Clara Ordlock Daughter F 12 Minnesota Bayard Ordlock Son M 9 Minnesota https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M2G9-F7X View the original document. ---- Lars Ordlack United States Census, 1920 Name Lars Ordlack Event Type Census Event Date 1920 Event Place Minneapolis Ward 7, Hennepin, Minnesota, United States Gender Male Age 55 Marital Status Married Race White Race (Original) White Can Read Yes Can Write Yes Relationship to Head of Household Head Relationship to Head of Household (Original) Head Own or Rent Rent Birth Year (Estimated) 1865 Birthplace Norway Immigration Year 1880 Father's Birthplace Norway Mother's Birthplace Norway Sheet Letter A Sheet Number 2 Household Role Sex Age Birthplace Lars Ordlack Head M 55 Norway Louisa Ordlack Wife F 43 Minnesota Bayard Ordlack Son M 19 Minnesota Lilly Ordlack Daughter F 11 Minnesota Irvin Ordlack Son M 7 Minnesota Joe Ericson Son-in-law M 28 South Dakota Clara Ericson Daughter F 22 Minnesota https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MWYK-33Q View the original document. ---- Lars Ordlock United States Census, 1930 Name Lars Ordlock Event Type Census Event Date 1930 Event Place Minneapolis (Districts 1-250), Hennepin, Minnesota, United States Gender Male Age 65 Marital Status Widowed Race White Race (Original) White Relationship to Head of Household Head Relationship to Head of Household (Original) Head Birth Year (Estimated) 1865 Birthplace Norway Immigration Year 1881 Father's Birthplace Norway Mother's Birthplace Norway Sheet Letter A Sheet Number 18 Household Role Sex Age Birthplace Lars Ordlock Head M 65 Norway Erwin Ordlock Son M 17 Minnesota Elsie Elert Housekeeper F 18 Minnesota https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X3ZV-7HF View the original document. ---- Lars Ordlock Minnesota, Obituaries 1865-2006 Deceased Name Lars Ordlock Event Type Obituary Event Date 1937 Event Place Ada, Norman, Minnesota, United States Gender Male Relationship to Deceased Deceased Birth Date 13 Jun 1864 Birthplace Gudbrandsdalen, , Norway Death Date 15 May 1937 Death Place Minneapolis, , Minnesota Newspaper MDM Spouse and Children Louise Larson Wife Female Bayard Child Unknown Erwin Son Male Clara Daughter Female Lily Daughter Female https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2W2-HJ75 View the original document.
    1 Poeng
  37. The U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Church Records, 1826-1969 Name: Mathe Hansine Herindal Gender: Female Record Type: Marriage Marriage Date: 24 Jul 1884 Marriage Place: Dakota, Minnesota, USA Spouse: Johannes Halvorsen Church Name: St John's Lutheran Church Church Location: Northfield, Minnesota
    1 Poeng
  38. The Minnesota, Marriages Index, 1849-1950 Name: Martha Hanson Gender: Female Marriage Date: 24 Jul 1884 Marriage Place: Goodhue, Minnesota Spouse's Name: Johannes Halverson Spouse Gender: Male Event Type: Marriage FHL Film Number: 1379160
    1 Poeng
  39. The Web: Illinois, Select Deaths Index, 1877-1916 Name: John Halversen Birth Year: abt 1846 Age: 61 Yr Death Date: 23 Nov 1907 Death Place: Chicago, Cook, Illinois
    1 Poeng
  40. Grethe Flood

    Hans Simonsen født 1837 Jølster - bodde i Bremanger

    Nordre Bergenhus Amtstidende 27.0.1926 (www.nb.no)
    1 Poeng
  41. Gunnar Sigdestad

    Beskrivelse av møllebruk

    1 Poeng
Denne topplisten er satt til Oslo/GMT+02:00
  • Hvem er aktive   0 medlemmer

    • Ingen innloggede medlemmer aktive
×
×
  • Opprett ny...

Viktig Informasjon

Arkivverket bruker cookies (informasjonskapsler) på sine nettsider for å levere en bedre tjeneste. De brukes til bl.a. skjemaoppdateringer og innlogging. Bruk siden som normalt, eller lukk informasjonsboksen for å akseptere bruk av cookies.