Kenneth W. and Waldraut N.Hinson - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal             
          income tax for 2003 of $2,076.50.  The sole issue for decision is           
          whether Kenneth W. Hinson properly deducted $7,200 paid to his              
          ex-wife in 2003 as alimony under section 71(b).  We hold that he            
          did not.                                                                    
                                     Background                                       
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so                
          found.  We incorporate by reference the parties’ stipulation of             
          facts and accompanying exhibits.                                            
               At the time the petition was filed, Kenneth W. Hinson                  
          (petitioner) and Waldraut N. Hinson resided in Ponte Vedra Beach,           
          Florida.2                                                                   
               Petitioner and Linda Hinson were married in December 1969              
          and divorced in March 1993.  The Final Judgment of Dissolution of           
          Marriage (divorce decree) provided that, inter alia, petitioner             
          was to pay his ex-wife $1,200 per month in “rehabilitative                  
          alimony” until June 30, 1996.  The divorce decree also provided             
          that petitioner was to pay his ex-wife a total of $72,000 in                
          “lump-sum alimony”, payable in installments of $600 per month,              
          beginning July 1, 1996, and ending June 30, 2006.  The divorce              



               2  Although Kenneth and Waldraut Hinson petitioned the Court           
          in response to respondent’s notice of deficiency, only Mr. Hinson           
          appeared at trial.  Further, the sole issue presented in this               
          case concerns payments Mr. Hinson made to his ex-wife in 2003.              
          Therefore, as a matter of convenience, we refer to Mr. Hinson               
          alone as petitioner.                                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007