- 16 -
Respondent contends that petitioner did not show that they
were deductible expenses or that he used his separate funds to
pay them. Respondent also contends that petitioner may not
deduct those amounts because he had substantial community funds
available when he paid them. Respondent concedes that petitioner
may deduct his one-half share of those amounts, which we treat as
a concession that the interest and taxes at issue would have been
deductible if paid by petitioner's former spouse.
2. Whether the Possibility That Petitioner May Be
Reimbursed Bars Him From Deducting His Payment of His
Former Spouse’s Share of Mortgage Interest and Property
Taxes
Respondent contends that petitioner may not deduct his
payments of his former spouse’s share of mortgage interest and
property taxes because he has a right to be reimbursed by her.
Respondent contends that Levy v. Commissioner, 212 F.2d 552, 554
(5th Cir. 1954), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated
March 9, 1953; Estate of Boyd v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 564, 566-
567 (1957); and Conte v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-571, affd.
722 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1983), support this contention. We
disagree.
Petitioner concedes that he had a right to be reimbursed for
community expenses that he paid with his separate funds from
March 27 to December 31, 1987. However, none of the cases
respondent relies on involved mortgage interest and real property
taxes for which the taxpayer was jointly and severally liable.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011