- 5 -
petitioner sent Mrs. Burton a check drawn on petitioner's account
at BancOhio in the amount of $30,000 to fulfill his obligation
under the Decree.
On his 1991 Federal income tax return, petitioner reported
the plan balance as dividend income of $138,418.91 and capital
gain income of $38,335.97. Petitioner also claimed an alimony
deduction with respect to both the $30,000 that he paid directly
to Mrs. Burton and the $126,099.46 he paid to satisfy the
mortgage on 2707 Daybreak Drive. Petitioner included this amount
as part of the total alimony deduction of $175,394.07 claimed on
the return. The parties have stipulated that petitioner's
allowable alimony deduction for the taxable year 1991 was $5,425.
In the Amendment to Answer referred to above, the asserted
increased deficiency of $17,676 represents the imposition of
additional tax under section 72(t) on petitioner's premature
retirement benefits distribution of $176,754.88. Since
respondent asserts an increased deficiency, she has the burden of
proof on this issue. Rule 142(a). However, the parties
stipulated that $20,655.42 of that distribution is taxable income
to petitioner. The parties further stipulated that if the Court
holds that the total amount of the retirement accounts
distribution ($176,754.88) is taxable to petitioner, then
petitioner is liable for the additional tax under section 72(t).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011