- 7 -
provided that SRC’s payments were unallocated family support,
retroactive to the date of those payments.
Petitioner contends that Healey v. Commissioner, supra,
supports his position. We disagree. In Healey, a State court
gave retroactive effect to its nunc pro tunc order. We said in
Healey that payments were not made deductible by means of a
retroactive court order. Id. at 1706. Healey does not support
petitioner’s contention that retroactive State court actions are
recognized for purposes of the section 71(b)(1)(A) requirement
that payments be received under a divorce or separation
instrument.
We do not recognize the retroactive nature of the State
court instrument in deciding whether, for purposes of section
71(b)(1)(A), the payments made by SRC were made under a written
divorce or separation agreement. Thus, petitioner may not deduct
any of the $84,000 that SRC paid to Ali in 2000 as alimony.
C. Whether Petitioner May Exclude From Income the $84,000 That
SRC Paid to Ali in 2000
Petitioner’s community property share of income from SRC for
2000 is $84,000. Petitioner contends that he may exclude that
amount from his income because SRC made the payments directly to
Ali. We disagree.
Petitioner has offered no authority for his position.
Petitioner is taxed on his share of SRC community income even
though he chose to have it paid directly to Ali because income
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011