Austin B. Ewell, Jr. - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         

          petitioner made a notation on a check does not show that he                 
          agreed to provide support.                                                  
               Petitioner points out that he paid support after the                   
          exchange of letters.  However, the fact that he made payments               
          does not show that there was a written agreement; on the                    
          contrary, the letters themselves show that there was not.                   
               We conclude that petitioner’s former spouse’s list of                  
          expenses, negotiation letters between the family law attorneys,             
          check notations, and the fact that petitioner provided support              
          are not a written separation agreement for purposes of sections             
          71(b)(2) and 215.  Thus, payments that petitioner made before the           
          stipulated judgment was entered on December 19, 1987, are not               
          alimony.2                                                                   
          B.   Whether Petitioner May Deduct $72,024 for Interest and                 
               $10,727 for Taxes as His Former Spouse’s Share of Business             
               Expenses                                                               
               1.   Parties' Contentions and Background                               
               Petitioner contends that he may deduct his payment of his              
          former spouse’s share of interest ($72,024) and taxes ($10,727)             
          for business properties that they owned jointly because he used             
          his separate funds to pay those expenses.                                   



               2 In light of our conclusion, we need not decide                       
          respondent’s contention that we lack jurisdiction to decide                 
          whether petitioner may deduct some of these items because he                
          did not claim them as a deduction on his 1987 income tax                    
          return or in the petition in this case.                                     




Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011