- 12 -
The record reflects that petitioner and Mr. Simpson owned
their home as tenants by the entirety during the taxable years at
issue. A tenancy by the entirety vests in each spouse a present
interest in the jointly held property. See Mirsky v.
Commissioner, 56 T.C. 664, 672-673 (1971). Typically, where
there is joint ownership of property, the husband and wife are
each personally liable for the mortgage payments. See Taylor v.
Commissioner, supra. A payment by one spouse discharges the
legal obligation of the other spouse to the mortgage lender and
each spouse is entitled to a contribution of one-half for each
payment from the other spouse. See id.; Zampini v. Commissioner,
supra.
Generally, where an agreement or court order imposes the
obligation for the entire mortgage payment on the husband, he no
longer has a right of contribution from his wife. See Taylor v.
Commissioner, supra. Thus, when the husband makes a mortgage
payment, he confers a current benefit upon the wife by
discharging her legal obligation to the mortgage lender and
relieves her of her obligation to contribute. See id.
In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Simpson and petitioner were jointly
liable to the lender for the mortgage on the marital home.
Accordingly, with respect to the $357 mortgage payments, half the
payments Mr. Simpson made conferred a benefit on petitioner and
thus are alimony includable in petitioner's income. The other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011