The Tax Court has not recognized that unemployment benefits are community property, although that's really not their call to make because they just follow California state court decisions on such issues.  An 82-year-old senior judge, almost 30 years ago in a Memorandum opinion, accepted the IRS argument that the wife had to report half the husband's "earnings," which it took to mean both wages and unemployment, even though IRS had previously assessed all of them to the tax-protester husband.  

Has Spidell found a California case where unemployment was a community-property issue?  As I think I posted earlier, there aren't many unemployed people who end up in appeals courts.  

The amendent to ARPA that excluded unemployment was approved by the Senate, literally in the middle of the night, with no discussion of what it meant.  The law states: "the gross income of such taxpayer shall not include so much of the unemployment compensation received by such taxpayer (or, in the case of a joint return, received by each spouse) as does not exceed $10,200."  What does "received by" really mean?  I won't be surprised if IRS makes what I think is a weak argument, that this limits the exclusion to the name on the 1099-G.  It will be an interesting summer to watch this play out.