- 6 -
Finally, because the monthly payment prescribed in the Judgment
is for “unallocated maintenance and support” we cannot determine
what portion of the payment is intended for alimony and what
portion is intended for child support. We assume that because
the amount is made reviewable upon the occasions when each of the
minor children turns 18 that some, if not all, of the payment is
intended as child support. In the latter case, if all of the
payment was intended as child support, then petitioner would not
be entitled to any deduction pursuant to section 71(c).
In this case, petitioner did not change, nor did the circuit
court revisit, the amount of the monthly payment when A.D.
reached the age of 18 in 2002. Petitioner, rather, decided that
instead of reducing the amount of the payment, or petitioning the
court to reduce the amount of the payment, that he would “allow
his ex-wife to keep the extra $9,000 and pay the taxes on it,”
thus allowing him to accordingly deduct $9,000 from his gross
income in that year. Petitioner’s decision and reasoning for his
action, however, do not comport with the requirements of section
71(b)(1), as this “payment” so designated by petitioner is not
pursuant to a divorce decree or instrument as required by section
71(b)(1)(A).
Accordingly, and based on the foregoing facts and
discussion, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to an alimony
deduction under section 71 for taxable year 2002.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007