TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Elliot S. Eisenberg
Docket Number: 22249-10
Judge: Halpern
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/05/2012
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ELLIOT S. EISENBERG, . Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 22249-10. O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Halpern at San Francisco, California on December 7, 2011, containing his oral conclusion of trial. the pages of findings of the trial of the above case before Judge James S. fact and opinion rendered at the In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) James S. Halpern Judge .Dated: Washington, D.C. January 5, 2012 SERVED JAN - 9 2012 Bench Opinion by Judge James S. Halpern December 7, 2011 Elliot S. Eisenberg v. Commissioner Docket No. 22249-10 3 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice1 Procedure. 59 Respondent determined a deficiency of $3899.83 in Petitioner's federal income tax for 2007. The only issue JStp for decision is whether Respondent was correct in reducing Petitioner's claimed deduction for alimony paid from $38,400 to $26,400. Other adjustments are computational, and we need not address them. The parties have stipulated certain facts; the stipulation of facts with attached exhibits is incorporated herein by this reference. By court order, Petitioner had been ordered to pay to his ex-wife child support of $1,000 a month and spousal support of $2,200 a month. Petitioner's 2007 statement from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Yh&Permanente Medical Group shows 'garnishment-spousal' of 5 25 $38,400. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 In 20093 the civil court ordered Petitioner's ex- wife to return to him $d7&&0 although he had asked for the .41b o<>o *í.Sit 4 return of $31,000, representing $1,000 for each month he believed he had overpaid child support to his ex-wife. Petitioner argues that.since the civil court did not return to him what he believes to have been an overpayment of child support, the civil court must have, in effect, increased his spousal support obligation, which for 2007; thus equaled the $38,400 that he deducted as alimony. 15hf Petitioner agrees that the civil court either increased his child support obligation or increased his spousal support obligation. Petitioner believes that the civil court increased his spousal support obligation but had no evidence of that, other than his expressed belief. There is in evidence, however, a letter from Petitioner's attorney that mentions an enclosure entitled MFindings and Order after Hearing'/, which apparently 35# addresses the disputed action by the civil court. The enclosure is not in evidence and, since we assume that Petitioner would have produced it if it were in his favor, we assume that it is not. Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proving his entitlement tio an alimony deduction in excess of that allowed to him by Respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1!9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and opinion in this case . Decision will be entered for Respondent . (Whereupon, at 10:19 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded. ) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888