Blanchard v. United States, Civ. No. K-75-1726.
Decision Date | 30 December 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. K-75-1726. |
Citation | 424 F. Supp. 916 |
Parties | Elmer F. BLANCHARD v. UNITED STATES of America. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
George E. Krouse, Wheaton, Md., for plaintiff.
Jervis S. Finney, U. S. Atty., Gerard P. Martin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., Edward J. Snyder, Trial Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
In this case, Blanchard seeks to recover the sum of $9,823.24 paid as additional federal income taxes and interest after assessment by the Government for the tax years 1972 and 1973. The Government counterclaims to recover the sum of $4,078 of additional federal income taxes which it asserts is due from plaintiff for the tax year 1972. Defendant has moved for summary judgment as to both the complaint and counterclaim. There are no contested issues of fact which in any way are material or relevant to the decision herein.1
Plaintiff, in 1970, was granted an absolute divorce from his wife by a Maryland state court. That court's decree incorporated a prior written agreement entered into by plaintiff and his then wife which provided, inter alia, that the husband pay the wife the sum of $1,800 per month until July 1, 1974, and thereafter the sum of $1,500 per month. Plaintiff claims a deduction for the years 1972 and 1973 for amounts paid to his ex-wife in excess of $1,800 per month.
For each of the years 1972 and 1973, the alimony payments under the agreement and decree amounted to $21,600 ($1,800 times 12 months). Real estate taxes with respect to the wife's property amounted to $1,146 and $1,274 in 1972 and 1973, respectively, bringing the total deductible amount, in the Government's view (the real estate taxes being deductible), to $22,746 in 1972 and $22,874 in 1973. On his 1972 and 1973 returns Blanchard claimed alimony deductions in the larger amounts of $31,000 and $33,000, respectively. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed the sums of $8,254 and $10,126, respectively, for 1972 and 1973.
Subsequent to the audit by IRS, plaintiff obtained on October 4, 1974 from the state court which granted the original divorce, a decree which, inter alia, increased the alimony payable for the years 1972 and 1973 to the levels claimed on the tax returns, $31,000 and $33,000, respectively, and ordered that the decree "be effective as of January 1, 1972." That latter order was filed after plaintiff in August, 1974 petitioned the state court to increase the alimony payments. In his petition plaintiff noted that "it was the understanding and agreement of the parties that plaintiff would increase alimony payments to defendant consistent with plaintiff's income and defendant's needs," and that "in order to avoid litigation, plaintiff voluntarily increased alimony payments * * * to $31,000 in 1972 and $33,000 in 1973" and that he and his ex-wife had
Plaintiff timely filed his individual income tax returns for the years 1972 and 1973 and paid the taxes he computed as due. He thereafter paid the assessed taxes and interest in issue and timely filed claims for refund which were disallowed. Jurisdiction exists in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1346(a)(1).
After the complaint herein was filed, the IRS issued to plaintiff a notice of deficiency asserting its determination that Blanchard owed an additional $4,078 of 1973 tax, and interest thereon. That deficiency notice was intended merely to correct a mathematical error in the amount of tax due under the original assessment. Plaintiff waived his rights under Int.Rev. Code of 1954 § 7422(e) to have his liability adjudicated by the Tax Court, and consented to the immediate assessment and collection of the tax and interest due. The tax has now been assessed and, pursuant to Int.Rev.Code of 1954 § 7401, the Government has counterclaimed in the within case to recover the $4,078 of additional tax, and interest thereon. Plaintiff of course denies his liability for the additional tax and interest. However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the mathematical calculations or indeed as to anything other than the construction and application of the relevant statutory provisions.
Int.Rev.Code of 1954, § 215(a) provides:
General rule.—In the case of a husband described in section 71, there shall be allowed as a deduction amounts includible under section 71 in the gross income of his wife, payment of which is made within the husband's taxable year. No deduction shall be allowed under the preceding sentence with respect to any payment if, by reason of section 71(d) or 682, the amount thereof is not includible in the husband's gross income.
§ 71 provides, in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gabriel v. Commissioner
...9 T.C. 47 (1947), affd. [48-1 USTC ¶ 9295] 168 F.2d 449, 451452 (2d Cir. 1948); Blanchard v. Commissioner [77-1 USTC ¶ 9319], 424 F. Supp. 916 (D. Md. 1976). An exception to the above rule exists where the modification is based on a showing "that the original decree did not correctly state ......
-
Gordon v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 1637-76.
...agreement does not fulfill the statutory requirement of a written instrument imposing the alimony obligation. See Blanchard v. United States, 424 F.Supp. 916, 919 (D. Md.). Campbell v. Commissioner, 15 T.C. 355, cited by petitioner, is distinguishable.5 In Campbell, a letter embodying an of......
-
Lebeau v. Commissioner
...must be in effect an enforceable obligation when an alimony payment is made to make such a payment deductible." Blanchard v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 916, 919 (D. Md. 1976). But that rule does not support respondent's position In the instant case, in late 1973 Marion filed an action in t......
-
Osterbauer v. Commissioner
...Dec. 35,257, 70 T.C. 525 (1978) (husband's income tax returns insufficient); Blanchard v. United States 77-1 USTC ¶ 9319, 424 F. Supp. 916 (D. Md. 1976) (husband's checks to wife insufficient). Instead, a written instrument must provide adequate proof of the existence of an obligation and t......
-
Reforming the Tax Treatment of Divorce: Splitting the Benefits of a Split
...(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 826 (1974); Van Vlaanderen v. Commissioner, 175 F.2d 389 (3d Cir. 1949); Blanchard v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 916 (D. Md. 239. The complex provisions concerning recapture cause bunching of income in the year of receipt and are contrary to the bill's ai......
-
The Prepayment-of-maintenance Conundrum: Traps for the Unwary
...if such payment is received by or on behalf of a spouse under a divorce or separation instrument." See also Blanchard v. United States, 424 F.Supp. 916, (D.Md. 1976). 10. Vogel, University of Denver Divorce Tax Workshop Treatise 1997, Ch. 3 at 3-20. 11. Mertens, supra, note 2 at 31A-167, 16......