CIR v. Gotthelf, 83-85

Decision Date28 January 1969
Docket NumberNo. 83-85,Dockets 32363-32365.,83-85
Citation407 F.2d 491
PartiesCOMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. Sara N. GOTTHELF, Respondent. Theodore J. GOTTHELF and Toby Gotthelf, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Harvey M. Sklaver, New York City, for petitioners Theodore J. Gotthelf and Toby Gotthelf.

Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C. (Lee A. Jackson, C. Guy Tadlock, Marian Halley, Washington, D. C., attorneys, on the brief), for Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service as petitioner and respondent.

Seymour Reitknecht, New York City, for respondent Sara N. Gotthelf.

Before WATERMAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL,* Judge.

MOORE, Circuit Judge:

Theodore and Toby Gotthelf appeal from a decision of the Tax Court entered on November 24, 1967, which found a deficiency in income tax due from them for the taxable year 1960 in the amount of $1,320.87. The question presented for review is whether the provisions of a separation agreement between Theodore and Sara Gotthelf, his former wife, "fixed" a certain amount of money exclusively for the support of their two minor children.

The pertinent facts were stipulated, and incorporated by reference into the Tax Court's findings of fact. Sara and Theodore were married in 1951. They had two children, Nicole and Eric, born in 1955 and 1956, respectively. On March 28, 1958, they entered into a separation agreement. Divorce followed a week later and the separation agreement was incorporated by reference into the decree of divorce. The portion of that agreement important to this case reads as follows:

5(a) In addition to the provisions heretofore made in Paragraph "4", the husband will hereafter pay to the wife, so long as she shall remain alive and does not remarry, the sum of Twelve Thousand ($12,000.00) Dollars annually as and for her support and for the support, care (including, but not by way of limitation, medical care and expenses), maintenance and education of the children of the marriage. Payment of the aforesaid sum shall be made in equal monthly installments of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars each on the 1st day of each month in advance. * * *
(b) In the event that the parties become divorced and that the wife thereafter remarries, then the amount which the husband shall pay the wife for the purposes stated in 5(a) of this agreement shall be reduced to the sum of Seven Thousand ($7,000.00) Dollars annually, to be paid in equal monthly installments, subject to the further provisions of paragraph 5(c) of this agreement.
(c) When either child reaches the age of twenty-one years, or in the event of the death or marriage of either child before he or she becomes twenty-one years of age, or in the event that either child is no longer living under the care and supervision of the mother (e. g., if either child is in the military forces), then the amount which the husband shall pay the wife shall be reduced by Thirty-Five Hundred ($3,500.00) Dollars on an annual basis for each child, so that when both children reach the age of twenty-one years, or have died or have married before they reach the age of twenty-one years, or are no longer living under the care and supervision of the mother (e. g., if in the military forces) (and in the event that the wife has not remarried), then the sole obligation of the husband will be to pay the wife the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars annually, payable in equal monthly installments.

Equally important is the rider attached to the agreement:

This agreement shall be binding on the Estate of the husband to the extent of the payment of Seven Thousand ($7,000.00) Dollars for the benefit of the two children, as in this agreement provided for.

In his income tax return for the year 1960 Theodore, filing jointly with his present wife Toby, claimed a deduction of $12,000 for "Alimony" paid by him to Sara for that year pursuant to the terms of the above agreement. The Commissioner determined, and Theodore thereafter conceded, that the amount actually paid to Sara was $11,400. In any event, the Commissioner found that $7,000 of this amount was for child support rather than for alimony and was, therefore, not deductible by Theodore under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which allows a deduction for the amount of alimony paid to a divorced spouse (26 U.S.C. § 215(a)) even if used for purposes of child support (26 U.S.C. § 71 (a)) unless the terms of the separation agreement "fix" the amount to be paid for child support. Theodore contested this determination in the Tax Court proceeding below, contending that the entire $11,400...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Carle v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • April 22, 1970
    ...and that this constitutes a sufficient designation to make concerned. Compare Sara Nicoll Gotthelf, 48 T.C. 690 (1967), affd. 407 F.2d 491 (C.A. 2, 1969), certiorari denied 396 U.S. 828 (1969). Such being the case, the payments must be applied to child support. Sec. 71(b); Martha J. Blyth, ......
  • Glenn v. Commissioner, Docket No. 583-70 SC.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • December 14, 1970
    ...be explicit on the face of the agreement or decree. See 366 U. S. at pp. 303, 305; Commissioner v. Gotthelf 69-1 USTC ¶ 9208, 407 F. 2d 491 (C. A. 2, 1969), affirming Dec. 28,571 48 T. C. 690 (1967); Van Oss v. Commissioner 67-2 USTC ¶ 9476, 377 F. 2d 812 (C. A. 2, 1967), affirming a Memora......
  • MANE v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • January 7, 1971
    ..."fix" the amount of child support. Commissioner v. Lester, supra, at pp. 303, 305. In Commissioner v. Gotthelf 69-1 USTC ¶ 9208, 407 F. 2d 491 (C. A. 2, 1969), affirming Dec. 28,571 48 T. C. 690 (1967), relied upon by petitioners, a rider to the agreement was found to constitute an unambigu......
  • Leigh v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • September 22, 1986
    ...inquiry. Mass v. Commissioner, supra at 123; Gotthelf v. Commissioner Dec. 28,571, 48 T.C. 690, 694 (1967), affd. 69-1 USTC ¶ 9208 407 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1969); Grummer v. Commissioner Dec. 28,086, 46 T.C. 674, 679 With respect to the divorce proceedings in issue here, the pertinent New York......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Reforming the Tax Treatment of Divorce: Splitting the Benefits of a Split
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 7-03, March 1984
    • Invalid date
    ...Abramo v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 154, 157 (1982). 268. West v. United States, 413 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1969). 269. Commissioner v. Gotthelf, 407 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 828 270. Technical Memorandum, supra note 81, at 12. 271. Id. 272. See The "Private Ordering" Concept......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT