- 6 -
In an order dated March 26, 2001, relating to a hearing held
on February 9, 2001, the Superior Court (1) recited the December
31, 1998, arrearage set by the 1999 order ($21,478),4 and (2)
credited the payments to Drs. Caffaro and Murphy that petitioner
made on Carmen’s behalf during 1999 ($4,188) against the
arrearage.
On August 2, 2001, petitioner filed a Form 1040, U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, for his 1999 tax year. Petitioner
did not seek, nor was he granted, an extension of time to file
his 1999 return. On his 1999 return, petitioner claimed an
alimony deduction of $50,528.5
On May 29, 2003, respondent issued petitioner a statutory
notice of deficiency for his 1999 tax year. In the notice of
deficiency, respondent disallowed in full the $50,528 alimony
deduction that petitioner claimed on his 1999 return, on the
grounds that “you did not establish that the amount shown was (a)
alimony and (b) paid”.
Petitioner now contends he is entitled to an alimony
deduction of $54,110 for his 1999 tax year, consisting of (1) the
$49,808 he paid Carmen in 1999 pursuant to the 1999 order, (2)
the $4,188 he paid Drs. Caffaro and Murphy on Carmen’s behalf
4 The 2001 order does not appear to account for the $3,824
arrearage payment the parties stipulate petitioner made in 1999
“pursuant to” the 1999 order.
5 The record does not reveal the derivation of that figure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011