- 3 -
obligated to pay, part in cash and part through providing
maintenance services to the landlord at the premises.2 The lease
was in effect throughout 2003, and the “premises” referred to in
the lease constituted petitioner’s residence during that year.
According to the lease, petitioner had the “right to use of all
parts of the premises”, as did the landlord. The lease reflects
the understanding between petitioner and the landlord that
petitioner’s children “will stay at the premises at least 50% of
the year”.
Petitioner and Ms. DiBiccari apparently separated several
years before the year in issue. Petitioner is the named
defendant in a Complaint for Divorce filed on September 7, 2000,
by Ms. DiBiccari in the appropriate Massachusetts court (the
divorce proceeding). A pretrial order issued in 2002 in the
divorce proceeding indicates that petitioner and Ms. DiBiccari
agreed by stipulation that she would have “physical custody” of
the couple’s children; “legal custody” of the children was
identified in the pretrial order as a “contested issue remaining
for resolution”.
Petitioner and Ms. DiBiccari entered into a separation
agreement dated November 24, 2003, that by its terms was intended
to be incorporated in the divorce decree eventually to be entered
2 None of the income reported on petitioner’s 2003 return
reflects this arrangement.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011