- 12 -
receipt by the principal. Warren v. United States, 613 F.2d 591
(5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Pfister, 205 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.
1953). Ms. Burkes' attorney was acting as her agent and received
the garnished wages on Ms. Burkes' behalf. See Estate of Kamm v.
Commissioner, 349 F.2d 953 (3d Cir. 1965), affg. T.C. Memo. 1963-
344.
Mr. Burkes, on the other hand, is entitled to the alimony
deduction involving the attorney's fees as claimed for 1990 and
1991 and, accordingly, respondent's determination, to that
extent, is in error. Due to the time delay between the
garnishment and payment of the $7,977.51 amount, some
inconsistencies result concerning the reporting of the alimony in
these consolidated cases.
Car Payments
The divorce judgment provided that Ms. Burkes was to receive
the 1989 automobile as a division of property, and Mr. Burkes was
to pay, as additional alimony, the loan against the 1989
automobile. Mr. Burkes made payments of $8,217 in both 1990 and
1991 and claimed alimony deductions in those amounts on his
respective income tax returns. Ms. Burkes did not include, in
either 1990 or 1991, any part of the $8,217 as alimony. On
brief, Mr. Burkes argues that he is entitled to only $648.756 for
6 The parties used $648.75. However, it appears that
$684.75 would have been the monthly payment. For purposes of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011