- 6 -
(1970), affd. without published opinion 28 AFTR 2d 71-5217, 71-2
USTC par. 9536 (4th Cir. 1971); Alleva v. Dept. of Treasury,
2002-1 USTC par. 50,188 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Ewell v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-253; Jachym v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-181;
White v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-65. Petitioner’s payments
were not made under a qualifying divorce or separation instrument
when they were made. Second, retroactive imposition of support
by a State court does not have retroactive effect for Federal tax
purposes. Turkoglu v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 552, 555 (1961);
Segal v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 148, 153-154 (1961); Van
Vlaanderen v. Commissioner, 10 T.C. 706, 707-708 (1948), affd.
175 F.2d 389 (3d Cir. 1949); Daine v. Commissioner, 9 T.C. 47,
51-52 (1947), affd. 168 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1948); see also
Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 175 n.5 (1992) (State
court adjudications retroactively changing the rights of parties
are generally disregarded for Federal income tax purposes).2
Thus, SRC’s payments to Ali in 2000 were not alimony, even though
the State court made the June 25, 2001, instrument, which
2 An exception to the general rule exists when the nunc
pro tunc order retroactively corrects an order which failed to
reflect the true intention of the court at the time it was
rendered. Gordon v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 525, 530 (1978);
Johnson v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 530, 532 (1966). There is no
evidence that the State court’s retroactive order in this case
corrects an order which failed to reflect the true intention of
the court at the time it was rendered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011