I appreciate your response. I checked out your links and I had already gone through those procedures and Lacerte still does NOT split the unemployment income as it should for a community property state.  And I double checked Lacerte's MFS vs. MFJ analysis of the tax savings of nearly $3000 and it is correct. It's just that Lacerte is not splitting the unemployment compensation between the two spouses.  Lacerte is keeping it on the return of the spouse who received the funds.  The question here is that Lacerte is not splitting the unemployment between the two spouses in a community property state.  Then, of course, the 2nd question is does the 10,200 get split between the two.