- 28 -
Harvey.11 Likewise we believe the entire amount of the payments
for the homeowner’s insurance covering the marital home is
alimony income to Hermine and a deduction for Harvey. We reach
this conclusion because Hermine stipulated that such payments
were “on her behalf”, she is the named insured on the policies,
and the insurance primarily protected real property owned by her.
The question arises, should only one-half of the mortgage
payments or homeowner’s insurance premiums be considered to be
“on behalf of” Hermine due to Harvey’s half-time occupancy of the
marital home? We think not, in light of a position taken in the
temporary regulations. The temporary regulations provide:
Any payments to maintain property owned by the payor
spouse and used by the payee spouse (including mortgage
payments, real estate taxes and insurance premiums) are
not payments on behalf of a spouse even if those
payments are made pursuant to the terms of the divorce
or separation instrument. [Sec. 1.71-1T(b), Q&A-6,
Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra.]
We infer from the regulation that payments on a mortgage or of
insurance or taxes relating to property owned by one spouse do
not benefit, and are not “on behalf of”, the nonowner spouse who
(merely) uses the property pursuant to a divorce or separation
instrument. Thus the mortgage and homeowner’s insurance payments
11 To the extent the mortgage payments included “qualified
residence interest” within the meaning of sec. 163(h), Hermine
may be entitled to a deduction for such interest in the year
paid. We expect the parties to address this issue as part of
their Rule 155 computations.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011