-31-
orders were not given effect for tax purposes. The difference
was that the Johnson taxpayer made a showing "that the original
decree did not correctly state the divorce court's determination
at the time of its entry." Id.
The circumstances here are peculiar in that the original
decree was for $1 and Ms. Zurn's retained joint interests in
property could provide an explanation for the $1,000 payments as
being for some purposes other than spousal support. Further, it
is curious that the $1,000 payment continued beyond the 15-year
period called for in the divorce decree and that Ms. Zurn
retained a joint interest in the real property after the 15-year
obligation to pay spousal support had concluded.
These circumstances have given respondent reason to question
whether petitioner was entitled to claim the $1,000 payments as
alimony. The uncontroverted evidence in this case, however,
shows that the original decree was incorrect. The evidence
supporting this finding includes the testimony of petitioner and
of Ms. Zurn, and the order entered by a California State judge
correcting what is referred to as a clerical error in the
original decree. Additionally, we note that it may have been to
Ms. Zurn's detriment to join in the stipulation correcting the
original decree from $1 to $1,000. We use the term "may" because
the record here does not indicate whether Ms. Zurn reported
income from alimony during the period in question. If the
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011