TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Walter Oliver Melvin
Docket Number: 21192-06
Judge: Swift
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 04/28/2008
Pages: 4

ADM . RECORDED SERVICE STAT . IS . T ., JUDGE FILE S T .C . Memo . 2008-111 5 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T WALTER OLIVER MELVIN, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 21192-06 . Filed April 28, 2008 . Walter Oliver Melvin , pro se . Lynn M . Curry , for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N SWIFT, Judge : Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,500 in petitioner's 2003 Federal income tax . The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a 6,000 alimony deduction . Unless otherwise indicated, all se tion references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2003 . SERVED APR 2 8 2008 - 2 - FINDINGS OF FAC T Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found . At the time of filing the petition, petitioner resided in Florida . On September 30, 1969, petitioner was married to Barbara Ann Melvin (Barbara) . Two children were born of this marriage . During the marriage, petitioner was a practicing lawyer in North Carolina . In a May 8, 1985, judgment of divorce issued by the General Court of Justice, Cumberland County, North Carolina, petitioner and Barbara were divorced, and among other things petitioner was ordered under N .C . Gen . Stat . Ann . sec . 50-16 .3 (repealed 1995) to pay Barbara $500 a month, or a total of $6,000 a year, in "permanent alimony ." Petitioner also was ordered to pay Barbara other funds and to transfer to Barbara certain real and personal property of the marriage . Consequently, petitioner transferred significant property and funds to Barbara but none in 2003 . On his 2003 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed a $6,000 deduction under section 215 for alimony paid to Barbara . OPINION Under section 71(b)(1) the term alimony is defined as, among other things, a "payment in cash" . - 3 - Section 215(a) provides that alimo n deductions are allowed for payments "paid during * * * [a taxpa er's] taxable year . " The regulations under section 215 provid that alimony deductions are allowed for payments "actually paid h y the taxpayer during his taxable year" . Sec . 1 .215-1(a), Income Tax Regs . Petitioner acknowledges that he di not pay Barbara an y alimony in 2003 . Petitioner, however, laims that the significant funds and property that he transferred to Barbara in 1985 included "advance" alimony payment of $6,000 for each subsequent year, including a $6,000 adv nce payment of alimon y for 2003 . Petitioner's claimed $6,000 limony deduction for 2003 r is based on this alleged 1985 "advance" payment . Coleman v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo 1988-442, is an analogous case . Therein, a divorced wi e sought to allocate alimony arrearages received in 1984 to arlier years . We concluded that she was required to report all of the alimony received in 1984 in her 1984 income . Petitioner refers us to Hawkins v . Commissioner, 86 F .3d 982 (10th Cir . 1996), revg . 102 T .C . 61 (19 4), and Hoover v . Commissioner , 102 F .3d 842 (6th Cir . 19 6), affg . T .C . Memo . 1995-183 . Neither case is in point . H wkins, involved the question of whether a marital settlemen agreement incorporated into a divorce decree constituted a qua ified domestic relations order . Hoover , involved the question of whether payments terminated upon an ex-spouse's death so as to qualify as alimony . Neither case supports the $6,000 alimony deduction petitioner - 4 - claims for 2003 . Petitioner is not entitled to the claimed $6,000 alimony deduction for 2003 . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entere d for respondent . 0