Stanley P. Zurn - Page 30

                                        -30-                                          
          original divorce decree was entered in accord with the                      
          stipulation of petitioner and Ms. Zurn.  That decree ordered                
          petitioner to pay "$1.00 (one dollar) per month for a period of             
          15 years (fifteen years)" for Ms. Zurn's support.  It was                   
          petitioner's and Ms. Zurn's understanding, however, that the                
          monthly payment was to be $1,000, the amount that was paid each             
          month during the 15-year period.                                            
               Prior to the end of the 15-year period and during the audit            
          of petitioner's tax returns that preceded this litigation,                  
          petitioner was asked to substantiate the annual $12,000 alimony             
          claim.  It was then that petitioner discovered the divorce decree           
          did not reflect $1,000-per-month alimony payments.  Instead, the            
          decree ordered $1-per-month alimony payments.  Thereafter,                  
          petitioner and Ms. Zurn, by means of a stipulation, caused the              
          divorce decree to be modified nunc pro tunc by a State court                
          judge.  The document modifying the original decree states that              
          the nunc pro tunc change from $1 to $1,000 was made to correct a            
          clerical error in the original decree.                                      
               This Court has addressed the effect of a nunc pro tunc                 
          divorce decree on an earlier decree.  Several cases have given              
          effect, for tax purposes, to the nunc pro tunc change where it              
          corrected a mistake that had been made in the original decree.              
          Johnson v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 530, 533 (1966).  Johnson                  
          distinguished certain earlier cases in which the nunc pro tunc              






Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011