- 30 -
law obligation to support his or her children (i.e., through
payments to the presumed successor custodian).23 In contrast,
Lester stands for the principle, subject now to section 71(c)(2),
that only amounts specifically designated as child support in the
divorce decree will be treated as nondeductible child support
under section 71(c)(1).24 See Lawton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1999-243 (rejecting the argument that Pennsylvania’s child support
guidelines effectively “fix” a portion of an unallocated support
obligation as child support within the meaning of section
71(c)(1)); see also Simpson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-251
(same).
This Court has never squarely addressed and resolved the
tension between section 71(b)(1)(D) and (c)(1) in the context of
unallocated support obligations.25 For the reasons discussed
23 We are not aware of any jurisdiction in the United States
that does not impose a general obligation on parents to support
their minor children.
24 Sec. 71(c)(2) provides that a reduction in support that
is clearly associated with a contingency, specified in the
governing divorce document, that relates to a child will be
treated as an amount fixed as payable for the support of children
within the meaning of sec. 71(c)(1). See supra p. 13.
25 Compare Wells v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-2,
Gilbert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-92, affd. sub nom.
Hawley v. Commissioner, 94 Fed. Appx. 126 (3d Cir. 2004), and
Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-273, affd. sub nom.
Lovejoy v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2002), with
Ambrose v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-128, and Heller v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-463, affd. in part and remanded in
part 78 AFTR 2d 96-7610, 97-1 USTC par. 50,193 (9th Cir. 1996).
See also Kean v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-163; Murphy v.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011