- 18 -
analysis to what gave rise to the threat that the taxpayer sought
to overcome. That threat was the wife’s claim. The wife’s
claim, the Supreme Court determined, “stemmed entirely from the
marital relationship, and not, under any tenable view of things,
from income-producing activity.” Id. at 51. Applying this to
the search for “the origin and character of the claim with
respect to which an expense was incurred,” (id. at 49) the
Supreme Court concluded as follows: “Thus none of respondent’s
[Gilmore’s] expenditures in resisting these claims can be deemed
‘business’ expenses, and they are therefore not deductible under
� 23(a)(2).” [Id. at 52.]
In a companion case, United States v. Patrick, 372 U.S. 53
(1963), the taxpayer’s wife sued for divorce. See id. at 54.
Negotiations resulted in a property settlement agreement. See
ibid. The divorce court then granted an absolute divorce to the
wife, approved the property settlement, and ordered the taxpayer
to pay the attorney’s fees for both parties. See ibid. The
taxpayer and his wife allocated the total fees as follows:
$4,000 for handling the divorce itself, $16,000 for rearranging
the stock interests in a family corporation that the taxpayer
headed, and $4,000 for dealing with certain leases and
transferring property to a trust. See id. at 54-56. The
taxpayer claimed deductions for those portions of the attorney’s
fees allocable to the property settlement and not to the divorce
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011