- 9 -
child support, the entire amount of such payments received by
petitioner in 1994 and 1995 is alimony and includable in income.
Delinquent Utilities
The family court order required Mr. Simpson to pay $70 per
month toward the delinquent utilities debt. These payments were
not fixed as child support by the court order, and therefore do
not represent child support. See sec. 71(c).
Petitioner's argument that these payments were not made on
her behalf is twofold. First, she claims that no payments were
made at all to the utilities companies because the debt was
completely paid off prior to 1994. Second, she claims that even
if the $70 payments were made, they were made only in 1994, and
the utilities were listed in Mr. Simpson's name, not hers.
Therefore, petitioner argues, the delinquent payments were made
for Mr. Simpson's own benefit, not on her behalf.
But petitioner and her children were the only members of the
household at the time the delinquent utilities were accrued, so
she and the family were the beneficiaries of the payments. Such
payments made on behalf of a former spouse represent alimony if
paid pursuant to a divorce decree or separation agreement not
specifically fixing a portion of the payments as child support.
See Graham v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 415 (1982) (payments by
former husband for utilities on a family home were alimony when
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011