- 9 -
would be no logical reason for a court to order the payor spouse
to continue making unallocated support payments.
The present case is similar to Kean v. Commissioner, supra.
During the 2000 taxable year, petitioner had joint legal custody
of Marc and Christopher and residential custody of Christopher.
If Ms. Peterson had died during the pendency of the divorce
proceeding, such proceeding would have abated, while the issue of
residential custody of Marc would not have abated. Petitioner
would then have had to seek a court order or judgment on this
issue, but absent unusual circumstances not present here, custody
would have reverted to petitioner. Similar to Kean, there would
be no logical reason in the present case for the New Jersey court
to order that petitioner continue to make unallocated support
payments.
We conclude that, under the particular facts of this case,
petitioner’s obligation to make unallocated support payments
during the pendency of the divorce proceedings would have
terminated at Ms. Peterson’s death, and as such, the requirements
of section 71(b)(1)(D) are satisfied. We further conclude that
unallocated support payments made in the present case are alimony
or separate maintenance payments for Federal income tax purposes
and that such payments in the amount of $24,424 are deductible by
petitioner under section 215.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011