- 10 -
Respondent further contends that petitioner could have purchased
separate insurance for the children without violating the divorce
decree and that it was petitioner’s voluntary decision to
continue existing coverage which included his former spouse.
We believe petitioner’s testimony that he could not change
his insurance coverage after he elected his 2002 plan during the
open enrollment period in late 2001. The fact that he could not
elect another plan, however, does not mean half of all the
medical insurance payments made by petitioner during taxable year
2002 is deductible alimony. There still must be an order
directing petitioner to make the payments. See Taylor v.
Commissioner, supra at 1138 (stating alimony is confined to
situations where there is a written agreement or court decree
requiring certain payments to be made). The February 2, 2000,
order pendente lite provided that the “Defendant shall continue
existing medical insurance coverage.” The March 20, 2002,
divorce decree stated: “This decree supplants the provisions of
all prior decrees or orders entered in this cause, and all
obligations imposed thereby which are still executory are hereby
discharged”. The divorce decree did not order petitioner to
maintain medical insurance for his former spouse. The divorce
decree only stated: “Defendant shall maintain medical insurance
for the use and benefit of the minor children of the parties.”
Accordingly, petitioner would be entitled to a deduction for only
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011