- 6 -
Petitioner’s wages were garnished to pay court ordered
alimony and child support. The garnished funds were paid to
satisfy a legal obligation owed by petitioner. Petitioner’s
gross wages are taxable to him regardless of whether he received
the funds and then used them to pay his alimony and child support
obligations or whether his employer paid the funds directly in
satisfaction of petitioner’s alimony and child support
obligations. Thus, the amounts garnished from petitioner’s wages
during the 1995 and 1996 tax years are not excludable from
petitioner’s income.
Petitioner also argues that he was the victim of racial
discrimination and denied due process during his divorce
proceedings. Petitioner contends that he should not owe any tax
liability on money that, in his view, was garnished in violation
of his civil rights. This Court, however, lacks the jurisdiction
to address petitioner’s allegations regarding civil rights
violations that may have occurred during his divorce proceedings
in State court. Child and spousal support determinations are
matters of local law, and we are not permitted to reassess the
merits of those judgments. See, e.g., Blair v. Commissioner, 300
U.S. 5 (1937). Although petitioner may not agree with the State
court ruling regarding his alimony and child support obligations,
he has not shown a basis for excluding the garnished wages from
his taxable income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011