FORRESTER, Judge:
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in the petitioners' income tax as follows:
Deficiencies
-----------------
Year Income Tax
Louise Ross ............. 1957 $576.00
1958 185.50
Walter Ross, Jr. ........ 1957 305.36
1958 156.00
The issues for decision are:
1. Whether payments received by petitioner, Louise Ross (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Louise), during 1957 and 1958 are includable in her taxable gross income as alimony within the meaning of section 71(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.1
2. Whether any part of the payments in question are excludable from petitioner's, Louise Ross', gross income as child support payments.
3. Whether petitioner, Walter Ross, Jr., is entitled to a personal exemption for his wife, Louise, during the years 1957 and 1958 on the theory that she had no gross income during those years.
4. Whether petitioner, Walter Ross, Jr., is entitled to a dependency exemption for his minor son, Robert B. Ross, for 1957.
5. Whether petitioner, Louise Ross, is entitled to a deduction for interest expense paid in 1957 as a part of installment payments she made on an automobile.
Other issues have been conceded by agreement of the parties and will be given effect under Rule 50.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The petitioners, Walter Ross, Jr., and Louise Ross, are individuals residing at Pecan Drive, Paducah, Kentucky. Walter Ross, Jr., filed income tax returns for the years 1957 and 1958 with the district director of internal revenue, Louisville, Kentucky. Petitioner, Louise Ross, filed no separate Federal income tax return for either of those years.
On April 16, 1937, Louise Ross and George C. Ritchie (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Ritchie), were married in Humphrey's County, Tennessee. On the next day, April 17, 1937, a divorce from George C. Ritchie was granted to Mary Evon Ritchie. Louise Ross knew of Ritchie's earlier marriage but thought it had been dissolved by divorce. She did not learn of the date of Ritchie's divorce until 1964. Louise Ross and George Ritchie lived together in Kentucky as husband and wife until 1953 when they separated. The couple had one child, Juanita Ray Ritchie.
On March 4, 1957, Louise and Ritchie entered into a written property settlement agreement providing inter alia (1) for George Ritchie to pay Louise and their daughter, Juanita Ray Ritchie, $465 per month for their maintenance, support and alimony as long as they both remain single; (2) for Louise to be paid $232.50 per month in the event their daughter, Juanita, should marry before she reaches 18 years of age, and if Louise should marry after Juanita reaches 18 years, she was to be paid $50 per month for an additional 3 years; (3) for Louise to retain and make payments on a 1957 Road-master Buick automobile.
On March 8, 1957, the following decree was issued by the McCracken Circuit Court of McCracken County, Kentucky:
McCracken Circuit Court
Nancy Louise Ritchie Plaintiff
vs: Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Judgment
George Ritchie Defendant
The above styled case having been submitted to the Court for trial and judgment upon the pleadings, proof and exhibits on file, the Court finds the following facts:
1. That the plaintiff and defendant are citizens and residents of McCracken County, Kentucky.
2. That the plaintiff and defendant were legally married on April 16, 1937, and that they lived together as husband and wife until some time in October of 1953, and that since this time they have not lived or cohabited together.
3. That the defendant is properly before the Court by having filed his verified answer entering his appearance and eaiving sic notice, and waiving the 20 days requirement for him to file answer and make defense, waiving the notice of taking of depositions and the submission of the case for judgment.
4. That they have entered into a written agreement wherein they have settled their property rights and the custody and control of their single daughter, Juanita Ray Ritchie, who is 14 years of age, together with all of the plaintiff's rights to alimony, maintenance and support, together with the custody and control of their daughter, Juanita Ray Ritchie.
5. That the Court has jurisdiction over this case, and that the cause of divorce as set out occurred in this state and within five years next before the commencement of this action.
Conclusions of Law
The law in Kentucky is that if a person, without fault or like fault on her part, has been abandoned by her husband for more than one year before the filing of the complaint, that it is grounds for divorce.
Judgment
IT IS THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
1. That the plaintiff, Nancy Louise Ritchie, is hereby divorced absolutely from the defendant, George Ritchie, and that the bonds of matrimony now existing be cancelled, set aside and held for naught, and both of the parties are restored to all the rights and privileges of a single person.
2. That the plaintiff is to have the custody and control of their infant daughter, Juanita Ray Ritchie, with the defendant to have the right to visit said child at reasonable times and in reasonable, sober circumstances.
3. It is further the judgment of the Court that the contract or agreement of settlement of their property rights is incorporated and embraced herein as a part of this judgment, and it is in words and figures as follows, to wit:
THIS CONTRACT made and entered into this the 4th day of March, 1957, by and between Nancy Louise Ritchie, party of the first part, and George Ritchie, party of the second part,
WITNESSETH,
THAT WHEREAS the party of the first part and the party of the second part are husband and wife; and whereas they have separated and there is no possibility of them becoming reconciled and living together;
NOW THEREFORE, in order to settle their property rights between them and as a consideration herein, it is agreed and understood that the house and lot and household furniture located on Route 1, Pecan Drive, that the plaintiff is now occupying and is jointly owned, that the defendant is to deed to the plaintiff this property subject to any lien that may be against it, for which the plaintiff accepts and agrees to pay. That in addition thereto the plaintiff is to retain the 1957 Road-master Buick automobile, and agrees to assume and pay any payments that may be due on it. That the defendant is to retain and keep the 1947 Plymouth automobile, and to keep two radios that are now located in their home.
It is agreed and understood that the defendant is to pay for the maintenance and support, and alimony of the plaintiff and their daughter, Juanita Ray Ritchie, the sum of $465.00 per month as long as they both remain single. This sum to be paid in two installments, one-half every fifteen days.
In the event Juanita Ray Ritchie should marry before she reaches eighteen years of age, the plaintiff is to be paid $232.50 per month until she reaches eighteen years. If the plaintiff should marry after Juanita Ray reaches eighteen years, it is agreed that she is to be paid $50.00 per month for an additional three years.
The defendant agrees that he will make all necessary written agreements to convey the property as herein described.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the party of the first part and the party of the second part have hereunto subscribed their names this the day and date first above written.
/s/ Louise Ritchie
/s/ Geo. C. Ritchie
AND This case, insofar as it affects the divorce, is hereby stricken from the docket.
/s/ Holland G. Bryan
Judge, McCracken Circuit Court.
Pursuant to the terms of the court decree Louise was paid $465 a month from March 1957 to October 1957. On October 26, 1957, petitioners, Louise Ross and Walter Ross, Jr., were married. Subsequent to their marriage in October 1957, Louise received $232.50 per month from George Ritchie. Ritchie wrote child care on the checks for $232.50 he sent after Louise's remarriage.
On August 29, 1958, the McCracken Circuit Court entered a modified judgment in the case of Nancy Louise Ritchie v. George Ritchie stating that Louise had remarried and was no longer entitled to receive the monthly payments provided for in the original judgment, and that Louise was financially able to assume the responsibilities of her daughter's support, and no longer desired George Ritchie to maintain and support their daughter. This modified judgment relieved George Ritchie from making further monthly payments to Louise. It is set out below:
McCracken Circuit Court
Civil Action No. 2412
Nancy Louise Ritchie Plaintiff
vs: Modified Judgment
George Ritchie Defendant
This case having been submitted to the Court by agreement of parties upon the petition to modify filed by the defendant and the reply to said petition to modify filed by the plaintiff which was verified by the plaintiff and their sixteen year old daughter, Juanita Ray Ritchie disclosing the fact that since the original judgment was filed herein and directing the defendant to pay into Court monthly the sum of $465.00, for the alimony and maintenance and support of the plaintiff and their infant daughter, that the plaintiff has re-married to one Walter H. Ross Jr., and that she is no longer entitled to receive any part of the monthly payment which original judgment provided that she was to draw by reason of her said re-marriage, and that by reason of her reply stating that she no longer desires the defendant to maintain and support
...
