James Stewart and Mary Ann Lanphere - Page 5

                                                 - 5 -                                                    
            "unallocated family support" found in the Judgment does not fix                               
            the payments as child support under the pre-1984 rules.                                       
                  Petitioners bear the burden to prove that the Commissioner's                            
            determinations are incorrect.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,                               
            290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Deductions are a matter of legislative                             
            grace and a taxpayer must be able to show that the deduction                                  
            sought comes within the express provisions of the statute.  Rule                              
            142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440                                  
            (1934).                                                                                       
                  The deductibility of alimony is governed by sections 71 and                             
            215.  The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat.                             
            795, applicable to divorce instruments executed after December                                
            31, 1984, revised both sections.  The initial issue we must                                   
            decide is whether James' divorce instrument was executed as of                                
            December 11, 1984, or April 1, 1985.                                                          
                  Petitioners rely on the New York case of Jayson v. Jayson,                              
            54 A.D.2d 687, 387 N.Y.S.2d 274 (1976), to support their view                                 
            that James was divorced as of December 11, 1984, the date of the                              
            hearing in open court.  In Jayson, the Appellate Division of the                              
            New York Supreme Court held that a judgment can be entered nunc                               
            pro tunc in a divorce action after the death of one of the                                    
            parties, if such party was entitled to the divorce while both of                              
            the parties were living.  Jayson v. Jayson, supra.                                            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011