- 17 -
are includable in Ms. Miller's income has been raised by
respondent in this case.9
We have carefully considered all remaining arguments made by
the parties for a result contrary to that expressed herein, and,
to the extent not discussed above, find them to be irrelevant or
without merit.
Conclusion
The unallocated family support payments made by Mr. Lovejoy
to Ms. Miller in 1993 and 1994 are not includable in Ms. Miller's
income under section 71 and are not deductible by Mr. Lovejoy
under section 215.
Our holding in this opinion will be incorporated into the
decisions to be entered in these cases when all other issues are
resolved.
An appropriate order will
be issued.
9Respondent did not raise sec. 61 as an alternative ground
for including the unallocated payments in Ms. Miller's income.
See, e.g., Mass v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 112 (1983). But cf.
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917) (alimony not includable in
recipient's gross income under predecessor to sec. 61). Since
the issue was not raised expressly in the notices of deficiency
and since all of the parties have tried this case on the
assumption that only sec. 71 applies, we do not address whether
family support payments not meeting the requirements of sec. 71
must be included in income under sec. 61.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: May 25, 2011