- 3 -
obligation to make alimony payments to Ms. Feriante ceased by
operation of law1 and gave Ms. Feriante the Palo Alto residence
as her sole property. Under both the predissolution order and
the supplemental judgment, the child support payments were to be
paid to Ms. Feriante.
During 1995 petitioner made a series of payments in
connection with the Palo Alto residence. He made six monthly
mortgage payments of $1,664.81 to the lender and paid property
taxes of $2,884.66 to the county. Also during 1995, petitioner
made a series of monthly payments directly to Ms. Feriante: In
January the payment was $3,500, in February through June the
payments were $2,000 each, and in July through December the
payments were $1,800 each.
On their 1995 joint Federal income tax return, petitioners
claimed a deduction of $15,574 for alimony payments. In the
statutory notice of deficiency respondent disallowed all but
$1,500 of this deduction.2
1The obligation presumably ceased by operation of law upon
Ms. Feriante’s remarriage. The exact date in 1995 of the
marriage is not in the record.
2Respondent also allowed petitioners an additional itemized
deduction for mortgage interest expense of $8,367 and an
additional credit for prior year minimum tax, both of which
obviously are not disputed by petitioners. In addition,
respondent made adjustments to the total amounts of petitioners’
itemized deductions and exemption deductions. These are
computational adjustments which will be resolved by the Court’s
holding on the issue in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011