- 13 -
5(f);2 see Holland v. Holland, 663 A.2d 768, 770 (Pa. Super.
1995) ("While the entire amount of an unallocated award is
taxable as income to the recipient spouse, the child support
portion of an allocated award is taxed instead to the payor"),
citing Coffey v. Coffey, 575 A.2d 587, 590-591 (Pa. Super. 1990);
Reisinger v. Reisinger, 471 A.2d 544, 545-546 (Pa. Super. 1984).
Were we to accept petitioner's argument, the Federal tax
results would be the same whether the State court makes an
allocated or an unallocated award of spousal and child support, a
result contrary to both Federal law and State policy and
practice.
The relief petitioner, in effect, seeks in this Court
(allocation of unallocated support payments to child support)
could have been sought directly by petitioner, by motion in the
court of common pleas. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16; see also
Ambrose v. Commissioner, supra.
Contingency Related to the Child
Petitioner also states that the Court, applying section
71(c)(2), has treated amounts as child support where the
2The support guidelines formula of Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-3
is based in large part upon the parties' "net income". In
determining "net income" certain subtractions must be made,
including those for "federal, state, and local income taxes" and
for "alimony paid to the other party". Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-
5(b). Certain additions must also be made; one of the additions
to the net income of a party, in the discretion of the trier of
fact, is alimony. Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011