- 7 - nevertheless continued to make payments of $400 per week in 2000. If such payments were for alimony or maintenance, as petitioner contends, his obligation to make such payments would have ended either under New York law or under the terms of the oral stipulation. His continuing to make payments after Ms. McSkimming’s remarriage and her physical custody of the children are factors that militate in favor of characterizing such payments as for child support and not for alimony or separate maintenance.4 We sustain respondent’s determination regarding this issue. Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent. 4 We realize that, of petitioner’s three children, Brian was at least 21 years old during 2000 and that New York law defines child support as “a sum to be paid * * * for care, maintenance and education of any unemancipated child under the age of twenty-one years.” N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law secs. 236, 240 (McKinney 2003) (emphasis added). However, under New York law, petitioner would still have to make child support payments at the full amount until he filed an application with a New York court and received approval to modify such payment amount. In any event, even if they were alimony payments, they would be voluntary and as such would still not be deductible by petitioner.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011