- 5 -
1998 when his daughter Jacqueline Joan Bonar began living with
him.
Regardless of the Agreement’s characterization of
petitioner’s payments as alimony, the payments must meet the
specific requirements of the Internal Revenue Code in order to be
deductible from petitioner’s gross income for Federal income tax
purposes. See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84
(1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440
(1934). Section 71(c) specifically provides that a payment will
be “treated as an amount fixed as payable for the support of
children of the payor spouse” if the payments are reduced “on the
happening of a contingency * * * relating to a child”. Temporary
regulations promulgated under section 71 make clear that payments
may be treated as child support “even if other separate payments
specifically are designated as payable for the support of a child
of the payor spouse.” Sec. 1.71-1T(c), Q&A-16, Temporary Income
Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 34451, 34456 (Aug. 31, 1984).
Under the terms of the Agreement, the payments at issue are
subject to automatic termination upon “the youngest child
reaching age eighteen”. This contingency renders petitioner’s
payments ineligible for treatment as alimony. See Hammond v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-53; Fosberg v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-713. We therefore hold that petitioner’s payments are
not deductible from his gross income in 1995 and 1996.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011