- 9 -
her of her obligation to pay her one-half of the mortgage because
of the fact that petitioner was the sole owner and the sole
occupant of the Lakewood home. In Taylor v. Commissioner, 45
T.C. 120, 123 (1965), former husband and wife jointly owned the
marital property, and both were personally liable on the mortgage
loan. Pursuant to their divorce decree, the wife was entitled to
reside in the marital home, and the husband was directed to make
the mortgage payments. The husband then deducted the mortgage
payments as alimony. The Court held that he was entitled to
claim one-half of the mortgage payment as an alimony deduction
because each payment pro tanto discharged the wife’s legal
obligation to the lender and relieved her of her obligation to
contribute. Unlike the taxpayer in Taylor, however, petitioner
in the instant cases was the sole owner and the sole occupant of
the Lakewood home pursuant to the divorce action. Although
petitioner’s payment of the mortgage may have relieved Ms. Picou
from her one-half legal obligation to the lender, it did not
confer any direct economic benefit to Ms. Picou because she was
no longer an owner or resident of the Lakewood home by virtue of
the divorce decree. See Leventhal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-92 (holding that the taxpayer was entitled to an alimony
deduction for one-half of the mortgage payments on the marital
home that was solely owned by the former wife in which the
parties equally split residency of the marital home until it was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011