Sheeley v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 7719-71.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 7719-71. |
| Parties | VERNON L. SHEELEY, PETITIONER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John David Cole, for the petitioner.
Christopher D. Rhodes, for the respondent.
In 1968 petitioner was sued by his former wife (W) in Montana for modification of a California divorce decree. Petitioner agreed to convey two parcels of land to W in exchange for releasing petitioner from all past and future alimony obligations. This agreement was incorporated into the order of the Montana court. In addition, during the Montana proceeding the judge commented that he understood the parties had agreed that petitioner would be entitled to the dependency exemptions for the couple's three children if he continued to make the support payments provided for in the California decree. W's attorney answered that this was the agreement of the parties. No mention of such agreement was made in the Montana modification order. During 1968 petitioner provided more than $600 support for each of the three children, although W, the custodial parent, provided more for the children's support than the petitioner provided. Held: That the statements contained in the transcript of the Montana proceeding do not constitute a ‘written agreement between the parents' for the purposes of sec. 152(e)(2)(A)(i), I.R.C. 1954. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the dependency exemptions claimed for the three children.
Respondent determined a deficiency of $419.11 in petitioner's Federal income tax for the year 1968.
At issue in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions for his three minor children in 1968. The answer, as stipulated by the parties, depends upon whether the transcript in a Montana proceeding, which resulted in an order modifying a California divorce decree, constitutes a ‘written agreement between the parents' sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 152(e)(2)(A)(i), I.R.C. 1954.1
The facts are fully stipulated. We adopt the stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto as our findings. The pertinent facts are summarized below.
Vernon L. Sheeley (herein called petitioner) resided in Bowling Green, Ky., when he filed his petition in this proceeding. He filed a timely Federal income tax return for the year 1968 in which he claimed dependency exemptions for his three minor children. Respondent disallowed the claimed exemptions.
The petitioner and his former wife, Katherine E. Sheeley (herein called Mrs. Sheeley), were divorced by a judgment rendered in the Superior Court in the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, No. D-637680, on January 6, 1966.
The interlocutory judgment of divorce required the petitioner to pay Mrs. Sheeley $200-a-month alimony and $150-a-month child support.
During their marriage Mrs. Sheeley and the petitioner had three children. During 1968 Mrs. Sheeley had custody of these children.
Petitioner paid over $600 for the support of each of the three children during 1968.
Mrs. Sheeley contributed over half of the support for each of the children during 1968.
Petitioner became delinquent in alimony payments. Mrs. Sheeley sued him in the District Court for the 11th Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Flathead. She sued to obtain a lien on some Montana property in which petitioner owned an interest. She also wanted to secure her claim for past-due alimony.
On September 9, 1968, a hearing was held on that suit. After an off-the-record discussion, the attorneys for the parties reached an agreement which went beyond the purpose of the original suit. Petitioner was to deed to Mrs. Sheeley his one-half interest in the Montana property, as well as his interest in some California property. Petitioner was to be relieved of his obligation to pay past-due, as well as future, alimony. The agreement was to take effect after Mrs. Sheeley made a title search of the property to be transferred and was satisfied that she was receiving a merchantable title.
After the attorneys for the parties had stated that they agreed to the above terms, the following statements appear in the transcript of the proceedings held on September 9, 1968:
The Court: Let the record show that the offer is accepted by the plaintiff (Mrs. Sheeley). Now, in addition to this relative to the support payments of the children, it is the Court's understanding that the defendant (petitioner) shall have the right to claim the children as dependents providing he makes the support payments as provided in the decree and that the plaintiff will furnish the defendant with a written statement to that effect when requested, is that right?
Mr. Morris: (Mrs. Sheeley's attorney) Yes, it is, your Honor.
The Court: Now, that will not be made any part of the decree of this Court's since that's between the parties. Now, in view of this offer and the acceptance, the Court will grant same pursuant to the offer and will withhold the signing of any modification of the decree pending the compliance by the defendant with his offer.
The statements were expressly excluded by the Montana court from the decree. And the court indicated that the agreement was to take effect only after the petitioner had complied with his offer by tendering a merchantable title to Mrs. Sheeley.
On January 20, 1969, petitioner had complied with his portion of the agreement. The District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...that a written agreement between the parents is necessary to effectively allocate a dependency exemption. See also Sheeley v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 531 (1973). Therefore, petitioners must satisfy the requirements of section 152(e)(2)(B) to be entitled to the dependency exemption for Robert ......
-
Lebeau v. Commissioner
...was not a "written" agreement and therefore sec. 71(a)(2) does not cover the apartment house rental payments, citing Sheeley v. Commissioner Dec. 31,804, 59 T.C. 531 (1973); but see Lerner v. Commissioner 52-1 USTC ¶ 9241, 195 F. 2d 296, 298 (2d Cir. 1952), revg. Dec. 17,865 15 T.C. 379 (19......
-
Baker v. Commissioner, Docket No. 1144-76.
...in writing so there could be no uncertainty about whether the payments called for were alimony or something else. In Sheeley v. Commissioner Dec. 31,804, 59 T.C. 531 (1973), this Court held that an oral agreement by the parties recorded in the transcript of the proceedings did not constitut......
-
Yancey v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 2453-77
...to demonstrate that the provision in the agreement, upon which he relies, complies with the statutory requirement. 6 Cf. Sheeley v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 531 (1973). This we think he has not done. We are aware that the statutory provision in question was enacted subsequent to the execution ......