- 8 - liability. Moreover, the agreement specifically states that each party waived the right to alimony. Petitioner argues that the $20,977 was included as income on his 2000 income tax return, and, therefore, if he was required to report the stock option proceeds as income, he should be entitled to an alimony deduction. The Court rejects that argument for two reasons. First, a payment as alimony qualifies as a deduction only if it meets the criteria of section 71(b)(1). As discussed earlier, petitioner's payments to Ms. Lima failed to satisfy section 71(b)(1)(D). Secondly, in arguing that he included the stock option proceeds as income on his 2000 income tax return, petitioner implies that he paid taxes on that income and, therefore, is entitled to a deduction for payment of that income to Ms. Lima. That argument fails because petitioner did not pay income taxes on the sales proceeds of the stock options as he infers. The option proceeds are not identified by the issuance of any information returns filed by the payor, and, moreover, petitioner did not compute a tax on the option proceeds he received. Petitioner's return includes a Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, on which he reported a short-term capital gain transaction. On Part I of the schedule, he listed the Best Buy options, listed a gross sales price of $27,794, a cost/basis of $27,794, and a zero gain or loss. Petitioner, therefore, paid noPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011