- 11 -
and are not allowable as a deduction to Mr. Nahhas. Richardson
v. Commissioner, supra at 556.
Petitioner argues that the payments were always intended to
be nontaxable child support. To support her contention,
petitioner presented testimony at trial that the dollar amounts
provided for in the temporary order were based on guidelines set
forth under State law for child support. In addition,
petitioner’s attorney during the marital dissolution proceedings
testified at length that he intended that the payments under the
temporary order to be for child support and, hence, nontaxable to
petitioner.5
The Court concludes that the payments do not qualify as
child support under section 71(c)(1).
Thus, petitioner received alimony under the temporary order
in 2002 in the amount of $118,800. ($13,200 per month x 9
months).
II. Interest Income
Generally, gross income means all income from whatever
source derived, including interest income. Sec. 61(a)(4).
During 2002, respondent received information from third-party
payers that petitioner received interest income from three
5 Petitioner’s attorney evidently drafted the temporary
order after a hearing and at the direction of the circuit court.
Upon review, the circuit court adopted the temporary order.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011