- 16 -
affg. in part and revg. in part 25 B.T.A. 305 (1932), affd. 293
U.S. 289 (1934); Siewert v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 326, 337
(1979); Times Tribune Co. v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 449, 452
(1953). Also, there is no evidence that Mr. Ambrose or the
Superior Court was privy to or inferred from the income tax
returns that she was electing to segregate the family support
payments.9
Mr. Ambrose continued to make full family support payments
after the children had left Ms. Ambrose's residence to attend
college and until mid-1993. Mr. Ambrose's unilateral reduction
of the family support payments beginning August 1993 was contrary
to the Superior Court's temporary order. However, we do not find
this to be dispositive of Mr. Ambrose's knowledge or acquiescence
in Ms. Ambrose's election to prorate the family support payments.
After the children had left Ms. Ambrose’s house, no steps were
taken to modify the family support payments reflected in the
temporary order. Also, Ms. Ambrose is being inconsistent when
she argues that she was not required to refund the portion of the
payments she designated as child support simply because Mr.
9 We notice that on her 1991 Federal income tax return, Ms.
Ambrose reported $95,000 as income. We believe that is an error.
If she reported only spousal support as income--based on her
allocation that would be $9,500 per month--the correct amount for
that year would be $114,000.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011