Porter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 17491
| Decision Date | 18 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 17491,17505.,17491 |
| Citation | 388 F.2d 670 |
| Parties | Hazel PORTER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. Hazel PORTER, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Thomas E. Meister, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Hazel Porter.
Louis M. Kauder, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for Commissioner, Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Robert N. Anderson, Carolyn R. Just, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court, which held that periodic payments by a husband to his divorced wife over a period of fifteen years pursuant to a divorce decree were taxable to the wife as ordinary income. Reference is made to the memorandum opinion of the Tax Court, T. C. Memo 1966-79, for a complete statement of facts.
It is the claim of the wife that these periodic payments were made to compensate her for her interest in shares of stock in the corporation in which her husband was the principal stockholder and that they did not represent payments for her support.
The wife owned no shares of stock in the corporation, her only relationship with the company being that she formerly had been employed as a secretary. The divorce decree divided other property between the husband and wife but made no mention of the corporate stock. After hearing conflicting evidence the Tax Court made findings of fact that the periodic payments made to the wife were intended to be support payments and did not represent a division of property.
Petitioner contends that the State court's characterization of the periodic payments as "alimony" does not necessarily mean under Ohio law that they are payments for support, rather than a division of property. The tax consequences of these payments under 26 U.S.C. § 71 are not governed by State law. One of the purposes intended by Congress in enacting this statute was that there would be uniformity of tax treatment for situations arising in the various states. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lester, 366 U.S. 299, 81 S.Ct. 1343, 6 L.Ed.2d 306.
Whether such payments were made to satisfy an obligation to support or to satisfy property rights is a question of intent, and the determination of the Tax Court will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Bardwell v. Commissioner of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenthal v. Commissioner
... ... All of the returns were filed with the district director of internal revenue at Los Angeles. They were prepared on the cash basis, for calendar ... Wild Dec. 26,879, 42 T. C. 706 (1964); and Hazel Porter 68-1 USTC k 9170, 388 F. 2d 670 (C. A. 6, 1968), affirming a Memorandum ... ...
-
Ray v. Commissioner
...the court in its decree) intended the payments to effect a division of their assets, Porter v. Commissioner [68-1 USTC ¶ 9170], 388 F.2d 670, 671 (6th Cir. 1968), affg. per curiam a Memorandum Opinion of this Court [Dec. 27,913(M)]; Wright v. Commissioner [[Dec. 32,656], 62 T.C. 377, 389 (1......
-
Wright v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket Nos. 830-72
...payments, relying on such cases as William M. Joslin, Sr., 52 T.C. 231 (1969), affd. 424 F.2d 1223 (C.A. 7, 1970); Porter v. Commissioner, 388 F.2d 670 (C.A. 6, 1968), affirming per curiam a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Blanche Curtis Newbury, 46 T.C. 690 (1966). The determination of w......
-
Beard v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...parties in their agreement (or the court in its decree) intended the payments to effect a division of their assets, Porter v. Commissioner, 388 F.2d 670, 671 (6th Cir. 1968), affg. per curiam a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Wright v. Commissioner, supra; (2) that the recipient surrender......
-
Reforming the Tax Treatment of Divorce: Splitting the Benefits of a Split
...208. Mississippi does not give property rights to wives. Bond v. Bond, 355 So. 2d 672, 673 (Miss. 1978). 209. See Porter v. Commissioner, 388 F.2d 670 (6th Cir. 1968). But see Schottenstein v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 451, 460-61 (1981) (tangible property rights needed to support taxpayer's cl......