Virginia M. Marten - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          that the premium payments were periodic payments in discharge of            
          Mr. Lane’s legal obligation incurred under the support and                  
          modified decrees.  We did not specifically address whether Ms.              
          Marten had “received” the payments within the meaning of pre-               
          DEFRA section 71.  Ms. Marten now argues that under Wright v.               
          Commissioner, supra, she never actually or constructively                   
          received the payments, and the payments are not includable in her           
          gross income as alimony.                                                    
               Generally, it is not a requirement that the wife actually              
          receive the payments for the amount to be taxable income to her.            
          See Christiansen v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 456 (1973).  It is                
          however necessary that the payments confer on the wife a                    
          presently ascertainable economic benefit so as to deem the wife             
          in constructive receipt of the premium payments.  See Cosman v.             
          United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 656, 440 F.2d 1017 (1971); Mandel v.             
          Commissioner, 229 F.2d 382 (7th Cir. 1956), affg. 23 T.C. 81                
          (1954); Emmons v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 728 (1961), affd. 311               
          F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1962).                                                   
               In pre-DEFRA section 71 cases, generally, we have held that            
          the payee spouse must include in gross income premium payments              
          paid by his/her ex-spouse on a life insurance policy where the              
          payee spouse is named owner and irrevocable beneficiary of the              
          policy.  See Hyde v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 507 (1961), affd. 301            
          F.2d 279 (2d Cir. 1962); Stewart v. Commissioner, 9 T.C. 195                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011