Antoinette J. Dato-Nodurft - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          2000, petitioner filed a separate Federal tax return, claiming              
          single rates.  During the year in issue, petitioner resided in              
          Birmingham, Alabama, and Mr. Nodurft resided in Arlington,                  
          Virginia.                                                                   
               On October 9, 2001, the Circuit Court of the City of                   
          Alexandria, Virginia, entered a decree granting the divorce of              
          petitioner and Mr. Nodurft, which incorporated by reference the             
          April 17, 1998, separation agreement.  When she filed her                   
          petition, petitioner resided in Longwood, Florida.                          
                                    Discussion                                        
               The issue in the instant case is whether the payment                   
          petitioner received from Mr. Nodurft constitutes alimony that is            
          includable in her income under section 71.2                                 
               Section 71 provides:                                                   
               SEC. 71.  ALIMONY AND SEPARATE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS.                   
                    (a) General Rule.-–Gross income includes amounts                  
               received as alimony or separate maintenance payments.                  
               (b) Alimony or Separate Maintenance Payments Defined.–-                
          For purposes of this section–                                               
                                                                                     


               1(...continued)                                                        
          payment of $18,060.  The payment in issue is $18,608, and the               
          parties have not provided an explanation for this discrepancy.              
               2Petitioner does not argue that sec. 7491 applies in the               
          instant case.  Moreover, the resolution of the instant case does            
          not depend upon which party has the burden of proof.  Rather, the           
          instant case is decided upon the basis of the fully stipulated              
          facts and the documents contained in the record.                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011