- 7 -
the tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); see Sego v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000). If the underlying tax liability is not
properly at issue, we review respondent’s determination for an
abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.
Otherwise, we review the matter de novo. Id.
The only issue petitioner has raised is whether payments
received from her former husband pursuant to a disputed divorce
judgment should be included in her taxable income. Respondent
argues that in the circumstances of this case, section
6330(c)(2)(B) bars petitioner from challenging her underlying tax
liability. We need not resolve this issue, however; as discussed
below, even if petitioner were allowed to challenge her
underlying tax liability, she would not prevail on the merits.
Cf. Young v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-6; Horn v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-207.
Under section 71(a), “Gross income includes amounts
received as alimony or separate maintenance payments.” Section
71(b)(1) defines alimony as “any payment in cash if--(A) such
payment is received by (or on behalf of) a spouse under a divorce
or separation instrument”. Petitioner argues that the payments
she received from her former husband were not alimony because
they were made pursuant to an invalid divorce decree. She
contends that the divorce decree was invalid because the Midland
County, Michigan, circuit judge who entered it had previously
disqualified himself from the case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011