- 5 -
continuing personal liability that Ms. Picou might have had in
respect to the Lakewood home.
Petitioner timely filed Federal income tax returns for 2002
and 2003. On each return, petitioner claimed a deduction for
alimony payments to Ms. Picou in the amount of $14,448.4 On the
Schedules A, Itemized Deductions, attached to his 2002 and 2003
returns, petitioner deducted home mortgage interest in the
amounts of $6,061 and $3,896, respectively. For both years, the
amounts claimed as a deduction for alimony payments included the
amounts claimed as home mortgage interest. See supra note 2.
In the notices of deficiency, respondent disallowed
petitioner’s claimed alimony deductions. In the notice of
deficiency for the taxable year 2002, respondent determined that
petitioner
cannot take a [alimony] deduction if you are the
occupant of the home in which you state you are paying
the mortgage payments. Records show you also took the
mortgage interest on your Schedule A for the same home.
You cannot take the deduction twice. Your decree on
page 6 paragraph 8 states maintenance is denied by each
party. Page 7 paragraph 11 states that you are to pay
the following debts & obligations that [are] in the
nature of support, not Alimony.
4 There is no explanation in the record for the discrepancy
between the amounts petitioner deducted as alimony on his returns
and the total mortgage payments made by Union Planters Bank of
$13,176 and $11,780 for 2002 and 2003, respectively.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011