- 25 -
community expenses, even if one spouse pays all of them, unless
there is an allocation agreement. However, those cases do not
control here because in them, in contrast to this case, we did
not decide that the taxpayer could not prove that he or she used
separate funds to pay community obligations where community funds
were available.4
We conclude that the fact that community funds were not
exhausted does not preclude petitioner from deducting the amounts
that he paid for community obligations with his separate
property.
7. Conclusion
We conclude that petitioner may deduct 56 percent of his
former spouse's share of mortgage interest and property taxes
that he paid in 1987.
C. Jeep Expenses
Petitioner contends that he may deduct as a business expense
$6,326 which he paid in 1987 to lease and operate his Jeep.5
4 Two cases that respondent cites, Powell v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1967-32, and Finney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1976-
329, hold that a taxpayer may not deduct more than the taxpayer’s
share of a community obligation if the taxpayer did not establish
that the taxpayer used separate funds to pay the community
obligation. In Finney, we held that the taxpayer, who owned
property with his wife as tenants by the entirety, could deduct
all of the mortgage interest payment because he made the payments
with his separate funds.
5 Petitioner deducted $6,918 on Schedule A of his 1987
return for employee business expenses relating to his 1987 Jeep.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011