- 12 - therefor. Blackburn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-266, affd. 681 F.2d 461 (6th Cir. 1982); Finney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1976-329. The reason for treating interest and taxes differently from other types of expenses and losses is that even though a co- owner may not be personally liable for the entire amount of the interest and taxes, payment may be necessary to preserve that co- owner's rights in the entire property. Powell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1967-32. For the first 3 months of 1991, petitioner was entitled to receive one-half of the rental income from the Arizona rental property as a co-owner. Pursuant to the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. sec. 14-10-114 (1987), the Temporary Orders awarded Ms. Petrie the $600 monthly rental income from the Arizona property subsequent to March 21, 1991. Under Colorado law, the right to income from real property is an incident of ownership and the award thereof is not an award of alimony. McDonald v. McDonald, 150 Colo. 492, 374 P.2d 690 (1962). The $600 monthly rental income awarded to Ms. Petrie also was not child support because the Temporary Orders specifically provided that petitioner was to pay $960 per month as child support. Petitioner, therefore, must include in his 1991 income, one- half of the Arizona rental income for the first 3 months of 1991 ($900). Parsons v. Commissioner, supra; Commercial Factors v. Clarke & Waggener, supra. He is not required to include in hisPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011