- 12 -
We agree with respondent. Initially, respondent correctly
concedes that, at least for 1994, many of the payments were made
on behalf of Betty. Petitioner’s payment of $4,500 of Betty’s
accrued attorney’s fees were clearly made to Betty and on her
behalf. See Hopkinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-154.
Most of the $2,414 in reimbursed miscellaneous expenses were
paid to Betty and on her behalf. The language of section 71(c),
however, directs that some part of the miscellaneous payments are
nondeductible child support. The language of section 71(c) is
clear that for payments to be child support, the written divorce
instrument by its terms must fix a sum which is payable as child
support. We therefore hold that the $140 paid for Rob’s broken
trombone, the $100 for Nicholas’ graduation expenses, and the $60
for Melissa’s dental work meet the requirements of section 71(c).
By separately identifying those amounts, the State court’s order
for temporary support fixed those sums as child support under
section 71(c), and not alimony. Accordingly, under section
215(a), petitioner may not deduct those amounts.
Different considerations come into play regarding whether
petitioner’s payment of the mortgages and taxes in 1994 were on
Betty’s behalf. When a divorce court orders one spouse to make
payments on a mortgage for which both spouses are jointly liable,
a portion of such payments discharges the legal obligation of the
other spouse. In such circumstances the payee spouse has
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011