- 11 -
of Mr. Jaffe and Ms. Jaffe under Pennsylvania law. Each party
owned an undivided one-half interest in this asset. One-half of
the funds being withdrawn, therefore, constituted Ms. Jaffe's
funds. As such, this was a distribution of her own funds. That
amount is not deemed to be an award of alimony. Accordingly,
one-half of the $18,500 in withdrawals is not includable in Ms.
Jaffe's gross income under section 71(a), and that same amount is
not deductible by Mr. Jaffe under section 215(a).
With respect to the other one-half of the $18,500, the Court
rejects respondent's position that there was no definitive
characterization of the withdrawals in the agreed order of
September 4, 1992. The alimony order of September 13, 1994,
confirmed that the withdrawals were alimony pendente lite; i.e.,
that they were required for the support and maintenance of Ms.
Jaffe. The September 13, 1994, alimony order defining the
withdrawals as alimony pendente lite, coupled with the agreed
order of September 4, 1992, satisfied the requirements of section
71(b)(1)(A).
The agreed order of September 4, 1992, states: "Defendant
[Mr. Jaffe] shall be responsible for income taxes due on the
amount which is ultimately adjudicated to have been his alimony
pendente lite obligation." Respondent takes the position that
this language constitutes a designation under section 71(b)(1)(B)
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