- 7 -
assets, contents of the marital home, and automobiles in their
respective possession. The marital home and other real estate
holdings were awarded to Mr. Jaffe.3
As noted earlier, Ms. Jaffe withdrew $18,500 from the
Vanguard money market reserve account during 1994. She did not
include this amount as income on her 1994 Federal income tax
return. Mr. Jaffe, on the other hand, claimed an alimony
deduction of $18,500 on his 1994 Federal income tax return. The
Vanguard money market reserve account earned $15,543.37 in
dividends during 1994. An IRS Form 1099 was issued by Vanguard
to Mr. Jaffe for this amount; however, neither Mr. Jaffe nor Ms.
Jaffe included such income on their respective returns for 1994.
In separate notices of deficiency, respondent disallowed Mr.
Jaffe's alimony deduction of $18,500, for the year at issue, and
included $18,500 in alimony income in Ms. Jaffe's gross income
for that year.4 Additionally, respondent made a computational
3
The Court notes that the alimony order refers to Vanguard
account No. 9841402936. That is an apparent error because, as
noted earlier, Mr. Jaffe had closed that account and later
restored those funds to the escrowed Vanguard money market
reserve account on May 6, 1993. The Court is satisfied that the
reference in the alimony order to the Vanguard account is to the
money market reserve account No. 09886709322. The identity of
the account was not an issue at trial.
4
The Commissioner may issue conflicting notices of
deficiencies, for instance, in a case where payments may or may
not constitute alimony. The Commissioner's practice of issuing
inconsistent deficiency notices in order to protect the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011