-32-
payments were not alimony and in settlement of her marital estate
with petitioner, the payments may not have been taxable to Ms.
Zurn. We also note that if the $1,000 payments constituted Ms.
Zurn's income in the jointly held property, then petitioner could
have reduced the amount of income he reported with respect to
those properties.
Petitioner presented credible evidence that respondent did
not rebut, other than her theory concerning what we have referred
to as peculiar circumstances. Those circumstances are not
sufficient to overcome the uncontroverted evidence offered by
petitioner. It should be further noted that petitioner's real
estate tax information is part of the record in this case and Ms.
Zurn's income tax information reflecting how she treated the
$1,000 payments, ostensibly, is available to respondent. Even if
the information was unavailable, Ms. Zurn testified and could
have been questioned at the trial.
Finally, petitioner points out that California courts have
held that a nunc pro tunc order will issue only where a mistake
of law or fact has been made. Berry v. Berry, 294 P.2d 757 (Cal.
App. 2d 1956). This Court is bound by the judgment of the
highest court of a State, Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387
U.S. 456 (1967), and we can give credence to judgments of lower
State courts. In that regard, we have no reason to doubt that
the correction of the original decree in this case was in accord
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011