-29-
Petitioner claimed an alimony deduction of $1,000 per
month, or $12,000 for each year at issue. Respondent disallowed
$11,988, all but $12 ($1 per month) of the claimed deduction for
each of the years in issue.
Discussion
There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner paid Ms.
Zurn $1,000 per month--the only question is whether any amount in
excess of $12, on an annual basis, constitutes alimony within the
meaning of sections 71 and 215. Petitioner argues that under
California law the nunc pro tunc order corrects a mistake in the
original order. For Federal income tax purposes, petitioner
contends that the correction of a mistake by a State court
relates back so as to meet the requirements of sections 71 and
215. Respondent argues that the original decreed amount ($1) was
the amount intended by the parties and that no mistake was made.
Respondent infers that the $1,000 monthly payment to Ms. Zurn was
either to buy out her interest in the property under an implicit
property settlement between the parties or income payments
attributable to her joint property interests with petitioner.
Section 215 permits a deduction for alimony payments, as
defined in section 71. For purposes of this case, payments may
qualify as alimony if, in addition to satisfying other
requirements, they are received by a spouse under a decree of
divorce or of separate maintenance. Sec. 71. In this case, the
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011