- 6 -
gross income by Diane Murphy. The relevant rules are found in
sections 71 and 215.
II. Diane Murphy
As stated, in the notices of deficiency and in her
pleadings, respondent has taken inconsistent positions with
respect to petitioners: Respondent has required Diane Murphy to
include the marital payments in gross income but has denied
Ronald Murphy any deductions. On brief, however, respondent
clearly favors Diane Murphy. Respondent does not make
alternative proposed findings of fact, but makes only proposed
findings of fact that, in sum, are inconsistent with a finding
that Diane Murphy received any alimony from Ronald Murphy.
Respondent’s arguments are consistent with her proposed findings
of fact. Accordingly, we consider respondent as having conceded
that none of the marital payments received by Diane are alimony.
For purposes of Diane Murphy’s case, we find that none of the
payments made by Ronald Murphy to Diane Murphy are alimony. We
hold that no amount must be included in Diane Murphy’s income
pursuant to section 71, and we determine that there are no
deficiencies in Diane Murphy’s income tax for either 1990 or
1991.
III. Ronald Murphy
A trial in this case was held on June 15, 1995. Ronald
Murphy was present at the trial. At the conclusion of the trial,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011