- 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