- 6 -
described in subparagraph (A). But, despite his honorable
intentions, petitioner cites no authority, and we are aware of
none, subjecting a retired military officer receiving only a
military pension to the UCMJ.7
At trial, we found petitioner to be very straightforward and
honest; we are convinced that petitioner felt he was doing what
was morally required of him. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue
Code is very specific in its requirements, and petitioner’s
payments to his ex-wife in 2003 did not meet the requirement
outlined in section 71(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, we must hold that,
in the instant case, petitioner’s payments made to his ex-wife in
2003 did not satisfy the conditions set forth in section 71 and
are thus not properly deductible as alimony for the taxable year
in issue.
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
7 Similarly, petitioner cited no authority, and we are
aware of none, subjecting a retired Coast Guard officer to the
provisions of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, available at
http://www.uscg.mil.hq.cgpc/home/PERSMAN.pdf.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007