- 6 -
there was nothing to collect” because Ms. Thiellesen “wasn’t
making much income.”
Petitioners timely filed a joint Federal income tax return
for 2000 using the cash basis method of accounting. On their
return, petitioners claimed a deduction for alimony payments to
Ms. Thiellesen in the amount of $34,352.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed
petitioners’ claimed alimony deduction. Petitioners timely filed
a petition with this Court challenging the notice of deficiency.
Discussion9
Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and a
taxpayer bears the burden of proving his or her entitlement to
the claimed deductions. Rule 142(a)(1); see New Colonial Ice Co.
v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934); Welch v. Helvering, 290
U.S. 111, 115 (1933); cf. sec. 7491(a)(2).
Petitioner concedes that he is a cash basis taxpayer. As
such, he may deduct expenditures only in the year paid. Secs.
446, 461; secs. 1.446-1(c)(1), 1.461-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.
A. Alimony Deduction
The first issue for decision is whether payments totaling
$34,352 made to petitioner’s former spouse are deductible as
alimony. We hold that they are not.
9 We need not decide whether sec. 7491, concerning burden
of proof, applies in this case because petitioner did not allege
that sec. 7491 was applicable, and the issues are essentially
legal in nature. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438
(2001).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011