- 28 -
primarily and personally liable. Because of these circumstances,
the Board concluded: “No part of the $225 monthly payments
represented alimony or any ‘allowance’ to the wife. She could
not use the funds for any other purpose than to pay the carrying
charges on the mortgaged property and to reduce the principal
mortgage debt. In so doing she acted as agent or trustee for the
petitioner.” Kohlsaat v. Commissioner, supra at 534.
Petitioner provided no documentation, such as canceled
checks or Forms 1099, that substantiates her claim that she made
payments of mortgage interest in the amount of $2,471.09 in
taxable year 1999. Petitioner’s only evidence, in this respect,
is a statement from First Community Financial Services addressed
to Mr. Seidel reflecting that he paid $2,471.09 in interest in
taxable year 1999. Since there is no evidence that petitioner’s
funds were in fact used to make these payments, and the burden of
proof is upon her to establish that it was in fact her funds that
were used to make the payments, we must conclude that petitioner
is not entitled to the deduction claimed because she has not
established that the payments were made with her funds. Rule
142; Diez-Arguelles v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-356;
Kazupski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-182; Finney v.
Commissioner, supra; Kohlsaat v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011