- 5 - Feriante had a community property interest in the residence, which may have been acquired by petitioner prior to the divorce, is unclear. In any case, petitioner owned at least a one-half interest in the property. For these reasons, the mortgage and tax payments are not alimony or separate maintenance payments. Sec. 71(b)(1)(A); sec. 1.71-1T(b), Q&A-6, 7, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 34455 (Aug. 31, 1984). Because the payments made by petitioner directly to Ms. Feriante were for child support, these payments also are not alimony or separate maintenance payments. Sec. 71(c)(1). Petitioners argue that the cash payments petitioner made in January through June were alimony payments, while the mortgage and tax payments made in those months were made to fulfill petitioner’s child support obligations. We find this argument to be disingenuous: The record clearly indicates the cash payments were child support. First, as previously noted, petitioner owned the residence in which Ms. Feriante and petitioner’s son resided. Despite petitioner’s assertions to the contrary, we find it unlikely that a court-ordered obligation to pay Ms. Feriante a sum certain each month could be fulfilled by payments to third parties with respect to a residence which petitioner owned. More importantly, however, the amounts of the cash payments reveal their nature. Petitioner’s obligation to pay spousalPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011