Jerry L. Burton - Page 5

                                                 - 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