- 7 -
the provisions of section 152(e)(4) shall not apply to such
decree.
The parties disagree whether section 152(e)(4) applies in
the present case. The dispute centers on whether Mr. Anker was
in arrears in the payment of child support. In this regard, it
should be recalled that in the divorce decree, the Texas State
court directed that Mr. Anker
shall have the right to claim the dependency exemptions
for the children of the marriage for the purpose of
federal income taxes for 1984 and all subsequent years,
so long as all child support herein ordered to be paid
by claimant is timely paid. [Emphasis added.]
Respondent appears to concede that if Mr. Anker were in arrears
in the payment of child support, then section 152(e)(1), rather
than section 152(e)(4), would provide the rule for decision and
petitioner would prevail. See Flatt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1986-495, wherein we held that “where a divorce agreement
conditions the claim for dependency exemptions upon the
performance of specific obligations, it is appropriate for this
Court to determine if, in fact, the party obligated to meet such
conditions has fully complied.”
Mr. Anker’s court-imposed child support obligation for the
14-1/2 year period from July 1984 through December 1998 was
$75,015.48.5 The exhibits in the present case, particularly the
5 Computed as follows: $400/month x 146 months plus
$593.41/month x 28 months.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011