- 4 -
the monthly family support payments is alimony and therefore
includable in her income. She argues, however, that the
remaining $600 was in actuality for child support, and therefore
not includable in her income.2
We accept petitioner’s testimony that she believed that the
bulk of the monthly family support payments was intended to be
child support in the traditional sense of the term. In fact, the
record shows that that was most likely the case. For example,
the transcript of a divorce court hearing regarding petitioner
and her former spouse indicates the court intended that, for
nontax purposes, $150 of the payments was to be alimony and the
remaining $600 child support. Responding to the question by
counsel for petitioner: “What’s the $150?”, the court replied
“That’s a figure I’m placing on support for the wife. I don’t
want to say that because I get involved in the federal tax people
because that is child support. * * * I’m trying to protect him
from saying that the $150 is maintenance and the 29 percent is
support.” In addition, the payments were referred to as child
support in a court record; the record reflects the reduction of
the payments upon the emancipation of one of petitioner’s
children and the apparent termination of the payments upon the
emancipation of her other child. However, as discussed below,
2Petitioner does not challenge the specific dollar amounts
of alimony determined by respondent, for which there is a lack of
supporting evidence in the record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011