Cheryl J. Miller - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

          The Notices of Deficiency                                                   
               Respondent issued separate notices of deficiency to Ms.                
          Miller and Mr. Lovejoy.  In Ms. Miller's notice, respondent                 
          proposed an adjustment increasing Ms. Miller's income by the                
          amount of unallocated family support paid to her in 1993 and                
          1994.  In Mr. Lovejoy's notice, respondent disallowed that part             
          of Mr. Lovejoy's alimony deduction attributable to the                      
          unallocated family support paid by him in 1993 and 1994.                    
                                      OPINION                                         
          Classification of Unallocated Family Support Payments                       
               We must decide whether all or any part of the unallocated              
          family support payments made by Mr. Lovejoy to Ms. Miller                   
          qualified as (1) alimony includable in the income of the payee              
          spouse under section 71 and deductible by the payor spouse under            
          section 215, or (2) child support excludable from the income of             
          the payee spouse under section 71(c) and nondeductible by the               
          payor spouse.                                                               
               In this case, the Temporary Orders, incorporating the                  
          stipulation of the parties, imposed an obligation on Mr. Lovejoy            
          to pay a percentage of his income as family support.  This family           
          support obligation was characterized as "unallocated child                  
          support and maintenance" by the State court.  We are satisfied,             
          on the basis of our review of the record, that the required                 
          payments were intended to cover both Mr. Lovejoy's obligation to            





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