Evans v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 20 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 35130. |
| Parties | ALICE HUMPHREYS EVANS, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Sydney E. Shuteran, Esq., for the petitioner.
Melvin A. Bruck, Esq., for the respondent.
Petitioner was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce in Colorado in December 1947. Under the laws of Colorado, the decree became a final decree of divorce 6 months later, in June 1948. Petitioner received monthly payments from her husband from the time of entry of the interlocutory decree. Held, petitioner and her husband were still man and wife under Colorado law until the decree became final so that payments received by petitioner, prior to June 1948, were not income to her under section 22(k) of the Code. Marriner S. Eccles, 19 T.C. 1049, followed.
The respondent determined a deficiency in income tax for the year 1948 in the amount of $821.47.
The sole issue is whether monthly support payments received by petitioner in 1948, pursuant to an interlocutory decree of divorce under the laws of Colorado, constitute taxable income to petitioner under section 22(k) of the Internal Revenue Code.
All of the facts were stipulated, are so found, and are incorporated herein.
Petitioner is an individual, residing in Denver, Colorado. She filed her Federal income tax return for the year 1948 with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Colorado.
Petitioner and John Evans, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as John), were married in Denver, Colorado, on January 3, 1938. Three children were born of this marriage. Petitioner and John lived together continuously as husband and wife until the year 1947 when they were separated and she filed an action for divorce in the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado.
On December 5, 1947, petitioner and John entered into a property settlement agreement, reading in part as follows:
Pending the hearing on the application for divorce in the proceedings now instituted by the wife against the husband and the entering of a final decree of divorce or the final refusal of the court to make and enter such a decree within one year from this date—
(e) on or before the fifth day of December, 1947, and monthly thereafter, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of Six Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($625.00), to be used by her as alimony pendente lite, and the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of One Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($125.00) per month for each child for the support, maintenance, comfort and happiness of the three minor children, without any obligation on the part of the wife to account to the husband therefor:
(j) the provisions of this Article I of this agreement concerning temporary, separate maintenance or alimony shall (except as provided by Paragraphs (c), (h) and (i) above) entirely cease and terminate whenever a final decree of divorce in the divorce proceedings now pending shall be entered, or in any event within one year from date, and the remainder of this agreement shall be and constitute the final, complete, and permanent property settlement after the final decree is entered, and entirely supersede any and all provisions concerning temporary maintenance contained in Article I of this agreement. But if a final decree of divorce shall for any reason whatsoever not be made and entered in the pending divorce proceedings within one year from date, or either party dies before said final decree, the provisions of this Article I of this agreement (except Paragraphs (c), (h) and (i) above) shall cease and terminate and become of no force and effect, none of the remaining provisions of this agreement shall become effective, and the rights of both parties shall remain and be as they were prior to the execution of this agreement.
upon the entry of the final decree of divorce, the following provisions shall become and remain effective:
2. Payments to wife.
On or before the fifth day of the next calendar month following the entry of the final decree of divorce, and monthly on or before the fifth day of each succeeding month thereafter, the husband, during his lifetime, shall pay to The International Trust Company, and thereafter there shall be paid only as provided in Paragraph 5 of this Article II, hereof, for the account of the wife, until her death or re-marriage, which ever shall first occur, the sum of Six Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($625.00), but upon her death or re-marriage, any obligation to make any further payments for the benefit of the wife shall absolutely cease and terminate.
On December 10, 1947, the Colorado trial court entered its interlocutory decree of divorce, providing in part as follows:
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the court, that an absolute divorce should be granted to the plaintiff, and an Interlocutory Decree of Divorce is hereby entered, dissolving the marriage of plaintiff and defendant six months after the date of this Interlocutory Decree.
It is EXPRESSLY DECREED by the Court that during such six months period after the signing of this Interlocutory Decree the parties hereto shall not be divorce (sic); shall still be husband and wife, and neither party shall be competent to contract another marriage anywhere during such period, and the Court during all of said period does hereby retain jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this cause and upon verified petition or on motion of either party, or upon its motion, for good cause shown, after a hearing, may set aside this Interlocutory Decree.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS:
That the parties hereto have entered into a property settlement dated December 5, 1947 which provides among other things for the future care and support of the plaintiff and three children, for a complete and final property, alimony and financial settlement between the parties hereto and for the disposition of all the interest of each of the parties hereto in the property of the other; and that said agreement has been exhibited to the Court:
It is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the terms and conditions thereof are fair and equitable and constitute a full, final, complete and adequate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket Nos. 830-72
...F.2d 501 (C.A. 9, 1956), affirming a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Commissioner v. Evans, 211 F.2d 378 (C.A. 10, 1954), affirming 19 T.C. 1102 (1953); Merle Johnson, 50 T.C. 723 (1968); Marriner S. Eccles, 19 T.C. 1049 (1953), affirmed per curiam 208 F.2d 796 (C.A. 4, 1953). Merle Johns......
-
Deyoe v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 2084-73.
...such as filing joint returns under the predecessor of section 6013. Commissioner v. Ostler, 237 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1956); Commissioner v. Evans, 19 T.C. 1102 (1953), affd. 211 F.2d 378 (10th Cir. 1954); Eccles v. Commissioner, supra. The term ‘husband and wife’ simply has insufficient elast......
-
Sullivan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...be entered to permanently fix the status of the parties, though it is modifiable. J. R. Calhoun, Jr., 27 T.C. 115 (1956); Alice Humphreys Evans, 19 T.C. 1102 (1953); affd. 211 F.2d 378 (C.A. 10, 1954); Marriner S. Eccles, 19 T.C. 1049 (1953), affd. 208 F.2d 796 (C.A. 4, 1953); Md. Ann. Code......
-
Seaman v. Commissioner, Docket No. 5866-69 SC.
...26 T. C. 405; and J. R. Calhoun, Jr. Dec. 21,983, 27 T. C. 115 (1956), involving the right to file joint returns; Alice Humphreys Evans Dec. 19,528, 19 T. C. 1102 (1953), affd. 54-1 USTC ¶ 9290 211 F. 2d 378 (C. A. 10, 1954), concerning whether payments were taxable as alimony; and Merle Jo......