- 6 -
Const. art. VI, cl. 2. The decision of the Tax Court is to be
made under Federal law, the Internal Revenue Code; this is not a
proceeding under Chapter 5, Family Support Duties, under Arizona
State law. The laws of a State cannot govern issues of Federal
tax law. Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U.S. 280, 287-288 (1946);
First Natl. Bank of Omaha v. United States, 681 F.2d 534, 541 n.4
(8th Cir. 1982).
It is true that section 102 excludes from gross income the
value of property received as a “gift”. A gift in the statutory
sense, however, proceeds from a “detached and disinterested
generosity”, Commissioner v. Lo Bue, 351 U.S. 243, 246 (1956),
out of affection, respect, admiration, charity, or like impulses.
Robertson v. United States, 343 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1952). The
most critical consideration is the transferor’s intent. Bogardus
v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34, 43 (1937); see Commissioner v.
Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 285-286 (1960). Because of the
acrimony between petitioner and Arias it is doubtful that the
payments proceeded from “detached and disinterested generosity”
out of Arias’s affection, respect, admiration, charity, or like
impulses. Arias testified that his intent was to pay petitioner
spousal maintenance and child support. The circumstances support
his testimony.
The Court finds that $30,000 of the payments received by
petitioner from Arias in 2002 is includable in her gross income
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011