- 7 -
upon and sold in 2000. Petitioner attempts to avoid the
unavoidable consequence of this fact by suggesting that a
portion of the support obligation imposed in the February order
should be attributable to his obligation to pay a portion of
the rent incurred by his former spouse after moving from the
marital residence. See Marinello v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 577
(1970). The terms of the February order, however, impose no
such obligation upon him.
Furthermore, petitioner’s position ignores the reality
that the February order expressly establishes petitioner’s
child support obligation at $1,290 per month. The May order
allowed him to offset $600 per month from this amount on
account of the mortgage payments made directly to the
mortgagee; the February order requires him to pay the full
amount directly to his former spouse, albeit through
withholding from his wages. Petitioner’s child support
obligation as established by the February order totals $15,480
per year, the amount withheld from his wages.
The February order apparently remained in effect as of the
beginning of 2002, and it continued in effect pursuant to the
divorce decree entered later that year. Neither the February
order, nor the divorce decree provide for any form of spousal
support or alimony to be paid by petitioner to his former
spouse during the year in issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011