- 9 -
some of the facts in this case support the imposition of the
penalty. For example, the February order refers only to child
support, and the above-quoted portion of the divorce decree
establishes that petitioner’s former spouse waived any right to
alimony or spousal support. We assume that petitioner was well
aware of this as the divorce decree expressly states that he
was advised by counsel during the divorce proceedings. Be that
as it may, he claimed an alimony deduction.
On the other hand, we do not view the deduction here in
dispute to be one that “would seem to a reasonable and prudent
person to be ‘too good to be true’ under the circumstances”.
Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1)(ii), Income Tax Regs. Furthermore, other
than the nature of petitioner’s employment, the record contains
nothing about his “knowledge, experience and education”, sec.
1.6664-4(b), Income Tax Regs., that would have relevance to the
imposition of the penalty.
Similarly, the record fails to disclose how petitioner
treated support payments made in prior years on his Federal
income tax returns for those years. The absence of such
information, coupled with references to “child and spousal
support” (emphasis added) in the stipulation of facts and May
order, undermines respondent’s position that the imposition
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011