- 12 -
any later divorce decree. Respondent contends that the language
in the order pendente lite is not an express directive to make
homeowner’s insurance payments. We agree with respondent.
A taxpayer may not deduct specific payments as alimony
absent a divorce or separation instrument requiring such
payments. See Taylor v. Commissioner, supra at 1138.4
Petitioner invites us to read a command into the order pendente
lite that is not contained in the order. While we agree that a
prudent homeowner might purchase insurance to protect his
residence, that does not automatically qualify the homeowner’s
insurance payments as deductible alimony expenses. Because the
order pendente lite did not expressly direct petitioner to make
homeowner’s insurance payments, we hold that petitioner may not
deduct the payments as alimony.
Based on the foregoing, we hold that petitioner’s payments
to his Thrift Savings Plan, retirement plan, medical insurance
carrier, and homeowner’s insurance carrier were not deductible
alimony expenses for taxable year 2002. We have considered all
4We note that the regulations permit cash payments to a
third party on behalf of the other spouse to qualify as alimony,
provided such payments are “under the terms of the divorce or
separation instrument”. Sec. 1.71-1T(b), Q&A-6, Temporary Income
Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 34455 (Aug. 31, 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011