- 5 -
Sec. 1.71-1T(c), Q&A-17, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg.
34451, 34456 (Aug. 31, 1984) (emphasis added).
According to respondent, the payments are child support,
and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to an alimony
deduction for making the payments.
Petitioner points out that the payments fit within the
definition of alimony as set forth in section 71(b)(1): (1) The
payments were made pursuant to a divorce decree; (2) the divorce
decree did not designate the payments as ones that are excluded
from treatment as alimony under section 71 and section 215; (3)
petitioner and Ms. Lowe were legally separated and not members of
the same household during the year 2000; and (4) petitioner was
not obligated to make the payments after Ms. Lowe’s death.
Petitioner’s position, however, fails to take into account
the provision in the agreement that provides that the payments
are subject to termination in the event that Ms. Lowe does not
continue to care for Michael. This contingency is clearly
related to petitioner’s son Michael. Therefore, for Federal
income tax purposes, the payments are considered child support
and not alimony. Respondent’s disallowance of petitioner’s
alimony deduction is, therefore, sustained.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax
Division.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011