- 10 -
in Commissioner v. Lester, 366 U.S. 299, 303 (1961), that it is
the "'written instrument' that must 'fix'" the portion of the
payment that is for child support. Petitioner replies that
Lester has been overruled by statute. While it is true that the
result in Lester has been overruled by section 71(c)(2), the
principles of Lester still apply to cases to which the latter
provision does not. See, e.g., Raymond v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1997-219; Ambrose v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-128.
Of course, the statutory requirements are satisfied when an
amount is payable entirely on behalf of the child. See Sperling
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-681, affd. 726 F.2d 948 (2d Cir.
1984)(college tuition payments). But the language of the support
order in this case makes an unallocated award of support to
spouse and child. By making an unallocated award of support, in
view of the language of Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-5(f), it appears
that the court of common pleas intended that the full amount of
the periodic payments would be taxable to petitioner and
deductible by Mr. Lawton. See Mannina v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1985-565.
We observe also that the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
(DEFRA), Pub. L. 98-369, sec. 422(a), 98 Stat. 795-796, reenacted
as section 71(c)(1) the language of former section 71(b)(1)
requiring the divorce or separation instrument to fix the amount
of child support. In addition, DEFRA enacted "new" section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011