Fosburg v. Commissioner, Docket No. 2954-70 SC.
Decision Date | 03 August 1971 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 2954-70 SC. |
Citation | 1971 TC Memo 186,30 TCM (CCH) 773 |
Parties | Jeanette Fosburg v. Commissioner. |
Court | U.S. Tax Court |
Jeanette Fosburg, pro se, 401 Adelberg Lane, Cedarhurst, N. Y. Steven B. Nagler, for the respondent.
INGOLIA, Commissioner:
The respondent determined a deficiency in the petitioner's income tax for the calendar year 1966 in the amount of $319.10. The issue before the Court is whether payments totalling $1,150 made by the petitioner's former husband constituted income to the petitioner under section 71(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.1
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Jeanette Fosburg (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) resided in Cedarhurst, New York, at the time the petition was filed in this case. She filed her 1966 income tax return with the District Director of Internal Revenue at Brooklyn, New York.
On September 24, 1942, the petitioner married Daniel Shapiro. They had two children from that marriage, Susan Shapiro, born April 13, 1947, and Marc Shapiro, born May 14, 1950. On June 21, 1965, the petitioner entered into a separation agreement with her husband. The agreement, among other things, provided that the petitioner would have custody of the children. It also contained a provision as follows:
On July 2, 1965, the petitioner obtained an absolute divorce from her husband in Mexico. The divorce decree, which was issued by the First Civil Court of the District of Bravos, State of Chihuahua, Republic of Mexico, contained the following language:
In her 1966 tax return, the petitioner did not report the $1,150 she received from her husband in 1966 in her gross income. Respondent included the $1,150 in the petitioner's gross income on the basis that the payments were periodic alimony payments.
OpinionSection 71(a)(1) provides that if a wife receives periodic payments from her husband under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance or under a written instrument incident to such a decree, such payments are includable in her gross income. Section 71(b)2 makes section 71(a)(1) inapplicable to any part of the payments which the terms of the decree "fix" as being payable for the support of minor children of the husband. In Commissioner v. Lester 61-1 USTC ¶ 9463, 366 U. S. 299 (1961), aff'g. 60-2 USTC ¶ 9501, 279 F. 2d 354, which had reversed Dec. 23,746 32 T. C. 1156, the Supreme Court traced the evolution of section 71(b)3 and the meaning of the word "fix" as used in the statute. It stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial