Thomas Clarence and Claudia Ellen Maloney - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         

          (petitioner) made to his former wife.  We hold they may not.                
          Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as applicable           
          to the subject year.  Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules            
          of Practice and Procedure.                                                  
                                     Background                                       
               All facts were either stipulated or found by the Court from            
          exhibits accompanying the stipulations of fact.  The stipulations           
          of fact and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated herein by            
          this reference, and the parties’ stipulations of fact are found             
          accordingly.  Petitioners are cash method taxpayers who resided             
          in La Grange Park, Illinois, when we filed their petition                   
          commencing this action.  They filed with respondent a joint 1993            
          Federal income tax return on which they claimed a $47,900                   
          deduction for alimony paid to petitioner’s former spouse, Linda             
          R. Maloney (Ms. Maloney).                                                   
               Ms. Maloney sued petitioner for divorce in a Virginia                  
          circuit court, and, on March 21, 1991, the court finalized the              
          divorce by way of a decree of final divorce (Virginia decree).              
          The Virginia decree provides in relevant part as follows:                   
                    THIS CAUSE came on this day to be heard upon the                  
               bill of complaint; upon process served upon the                        
               defendant; upon the answer and cross-bill of the                       
               defendant; upon the report of James A. Evans,                          
               Commissioner in Chancery, and the matter was argued by                 
               counsel.                                                               
                    UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, the Court finds from                  
               the report, independently of the admissions of the                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011