- 14 -
retirement income. At trial, petitioner raised the issue of
whether he may reduce his gross income for 1990 and 1991 by one-
half of his AT&T retirement income. Petitioner contends that
because his AT&T retirement income was considered marital
property by the Final Orders entered in 1992 and his former
spouse was ultimately awarded one-half of his AT&T retirement
benefits commencing with the monthly payments made on or after
March 1, 1992, he should be taxed on only one-half of the
retirement benefits that he received during 1990 and 1991.
Respondent contends that petitioner received all the AT&T
retirement income during the years in issue and must report the
full amount.
Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes all income
from whatever source derived, unless excludable by a specific
provision of the Code. Respondent's determinations in the
statutory notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct, and
the taxpayer has the burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a);
Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935); Welch v. Helvering, 290
U.S. 111 (1933). Exemptions from gross income, having been
specifically stated, should be construed with restraint.
Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28, 49 (1949); Hagar v.
Commissioner, 43 T.C. 468, 484 (1965).
The Final Order directed that Ms. Petrie receive one-half of
petitioner's AT&T retirement benefits commencing March 1, 1992.
Prior to March 1, 1992, petitioner received the AT&T retirement
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011