- 2 -
Docket No. Year Deficiency
3401-97 1993 $7,238
1994 9,254
16223-97 1993 9,160
1994 10,442
These cases have been consolidated for purposes of trial,
briefing, and opinion.
After concessions,1 the issue for our decision is whether
payments made by petitioner David E. Lane on a life insurance
policy are alimony within the meaning of section 71.2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. At the time of the filing
of their petitions, petitioner Virginia M. Marten (Ms. Marten)
and petitioners David E. and Donna P. Lane (Mr. and Mrs. Lane)
resided in Sacramento, California.
In 1953, Mr. Lane and Ms. Marten married. During their
marriage, Mr. Lane had a successful real estate appraisal
1 Ms. Marten failed to argue in her petition, at trial, and
in her posttrial briefs that the premiums paid by Mr. Lane on her
health insurance policy did not constitute alimony. We therefore
find that Ms. Marten concedes this issue. See Petzoldt v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 683 (1989).
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011