Lester v. CIR

• Decision Date: 06 June 1960
• Docket Number: No. 301,Docket 26020.,301
• Citation: 279 F.2d 354
• Parties: Jerry LESTER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

279 F.2d 354 (1960)

Jerry LESTER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 301, Docket 26020.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 3, 1960.

Decided June 6, 1960.

Louis Mandel, for petitioner, Leonard J. Lefkort, New York City, of counsel.

Norman H. Wolfe, Washington, D. C., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, C. Guy Tadlock, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, HAND, Circuit Judge, and JAMESON, District Judge.

HAND, Circuit Judge.

Lester, the taxpayer, petitions to review an order of the United States Tax Court, holding him liable for deficiencies in his income tax for the years 1951-52, based upon the disallowance of deductions claimed by him as payments of alimony. The facts were as follows: Lester and his wife had three children, aged 13, 11 and 9. They lived in Los Angeles and had been married on August 24, 1934. On April 16, 1951, while the wife was still living in California, though he had himself moved to New York, they entered into an agreement in anticipation of a divorce. This agreement provided that the custody and control of the children should be given to the wife subject to plaintiff's reasonable right of visitation and of having the children with him for thirty days during the summer vacation. The important provision was paragraph 11, which we quote in part:

"11. The husband agrees to pay the wife for the support and maintenance of herself and the children of the parties, namely, Judy Lester, Joan Lester, and Jay Lester, the following amounts commencing with the effective date of this agreement (as said term is hereinafter defined in subdivision (j) of this Article 11):

"(a) For the period ending December 31, 1951, a sum equal to 50% of the husband\'s gross income commencing with the effective date of this agreement, but not in excess of a total sum of $50,000.

"(b) For the calendar year immediately following the period set forth in subdivision (a) hereof, a sum equal to 25% of the husband\'s annual gross income during said period of one year, but not in excess of a total sum of $45,000.

"(c) For the calendar year immediately following the period set forth in subdivision (b) hereof, a sum equal to 25% of the husband\'s annual gross income during said period of one year, but not in excess of the total sum of $45,000.

"(d) For each year immediately following the period set forth in subdivision (c) hereof, a sum equal to 20% of husband\'s annual gross income during each such year, but not in excess of that sum each year which, after the payment of all income taxes assessable upon the wife with respect to the amounts thus paid to the wife shall equal $15,600.

"(f) In addition to the payments above provided the husband agrees to pay for any extraordinary and unusual medical and dental expenses and fees incurred with respect to any of the children of the parties so long as they are minors and are not emancipated.

* * * * * *

"(i) All payments herein specified shall cease upon the death of the husband or the wife or upon the remarriage of the wife, whichever shall first occur. It is expressly agreed that the wife shall not have any claim against the estate of the husband, should he predecease her, for any sums payable hereunder, except such sums as may have been due and payable to her pursuant to the terms hereof prior to his death. In the event that any of the children of the parties hereto shall marry, become emancipated, or die, then the payments herein specified shall on the happening of each such event be reduced in a sum equal to one-sixth of the payments which would thereafter otherwise accrue and be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions hereof."

By paragraph 8(e) the parties also agreed that, so long as the husband was required by the agreement or by law to support the children, he would cause them to be jointly named as beneficiaries to the extent of $30,000 of the proceeds payable under three life insurance policies assigned by his wife to him.

The taxpayer performed the agreement by paying to his wife the sums specified in paragraph 11 and deducted on his income tax returns as alimony the "periodic payments" made during the years 1951-52. The Commissioner and the Tax Court held that he was entitled to deduct only one half of these as alimony, because subdivision (i) of paragraph 11 showed that one half was all that she was entitled to keep for her own use, the other half being paid for the maintenance and support of the children.

The question involved has been the subject of a number of decisions as to the proper interpretation of § 22(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U. S.C.A. § 22(k), which provides that "periodic payments * * * in discharge of, a legal obligation which, because of the marital or family relationship, is imposed upon * * * such husband * * shall be includible in the gross income of such wife." The "periodic payments" prescribed by the agreement were clearly imposed upon the taxpayer because of a "marital or family relationship"; and were therefore deductible by him. However, a difficulty arises from the succeeding sentence of § 22(k), which reads as follows: "This subsection shall not apply to that part of any such periodic payment which the terms of the decree or written instrument fix, in terms of an amount of money or a portion of the payment, as a sum which is payable for the support of minor children of such husband." The courts are not unanimous as to what is meant by the phrase, "fix, in terms of an amount of money or a portion of the payment." In the case at bar the Commissioner and the Tax Court have read the language in paragraph 11(i) of the agreement as "fixing" one half of all the payments made to the wife as sums "payable for the support of minor children of such husband." If they are so read, the decision of the Tax Court was of course right; if not, all the payments are to be regarded as gross income of the wife, and the deficiencies should be expunged.

In Weil v. Commissioner, 240 F.2d 584, 586, we held that a very similar agreement did not "fix, in terms * * * or a portion of the payment" what the...