Michele K. Garner and Roger Allen Garner, Jr. - Page 9




                                        - 8 -                                         
          entirely different:  Lump sum alimony which is not, despite what            
          petitioners may have been assured, deductible from petitioners’             
          income as alimony.  Thus, we hold that the $9,600 paid to Mr.               
          Garner’s ex-wife in 2003 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement               
          does not qualify to be deducted as alimony paid by petitioners              
          under section 215.  Sec. 71(b)(1)(D); see Mukherjee v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-98.                                           
               Petitioners have asked us to reform the Settlement Agreement           
          to more properly reflect the Federal tax intentions of the                  
          parties, particularly given the circumstances under which the               
          Settlement Agreement was entered into.  As a court of limited               
          jurisdiction, we are unable to do so.  See, e.g., Commissioner v.           
          McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Hays Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C.            
          436, 442-443 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964); see also           
          Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 784-787 (1989); Hopkinson v.            
          Commissioner, supra.  We do note, however, that the Georgia State           
          courts may have jurisdiction over changes to the Settlement                 
          Agreement and would be the proper forum for such disputes.                  
               In sum, we found petitioners to be very straightforward and            
          honest, as well as well prepared for trial.  Unfortunately, the             
          Internal Revenue Code is very specific in its requirements, and             
          Mr. Garner’s payments to his ex-wife in 2003 did not meet the               
          requirement outlined in section 71(b)(1)(D) by virtue of Georgia            
          State law.  Accordingly, we must hold that, in the instant case,            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007