- 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 spousal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011