- 6 -
accordingly, void for vagueness. We cannot think of any reason
why the payments would have been characterized as child support
in the Judgment if they were not intended to be for the support
of the minor child.
Finally, we consider payments made by petitioner to Ms.
Chavez in taxable year 2003. Specifically, we consider the terms
of the order dated June 18, 2003, which required petitioner to
pay $705.74 every 2 weeks to Ms. Chavez, and whereby $604 of that
amount was designated as “maintenance” through August 20, 2003.
Petitioner contends that he should be entitled to a deduction for
all of the payments that he made pursuant to this order in 2003.
Respondent, in fact, conceded that petitioner is entitled to a
deduction in the amount of $3,926 for taxable year 2003, which
represents 6½ payments made by petitioner to Ms. Chavez under the
June 18, 2003, order. Accordingly, we must now decide whether
petitioner is entitled to a deduction under section 71 for the
balance of payments that he made in that year pursuant to the
June 18, 2003, order.
In this case, because the order specifically delineates that
$604 of the $705.74 payment be for “maintenance” and the
remainder, $101.74, be for “unallocated child support”, it is
clear to us that this portion of the payments was intended for
child support only. In accordance with the aforementioned
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007