- 6 -
received from Norman from January 6, to June 9, 1992, constituted
alimony and adjusted her income accordingly. In the Explanation
attached to the notice, respondent stated that "Alimony or
separate maintenance payments you received are includible in
income." In addition, respondent determined that Marta was
liable for the accuracy-related penalty for negligence for 1992
pursuant to section 6662(a). Respondent has since conceded that
Marta is not liable for the accuracy-related penalty.
Discussion
We must decide whether spousal support payments made by
Norman to Marta from January 6, to June 9, 1992, in the amount of
$63,170 are alimony within the meaning of section 71. To protect
the fisc, respondent has taken inconsistent positions in the
notices of deficiency issued to petitioners. On brief, however,
respondent supports Norman's position that the payments are
alimony, and thus deductible by him pursuant to section 215(a)
and includable in Marta's gross income pursuant to sections
61(a)(8) and 71(a).
Marta argues for the first time on brief that her notice of
deficiency "does not set forth Respondent's specific basis" for
the inclusion of the $63,170 of support payments in income and,
therefore, the Court should, under Rule 142(a), shift the burden
of proof in docket No. 17347-96 to respondent. Rule 34(b)(4)
states that a petition must contain "Clear and concise
assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011