TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Bradley Glazer
Docket Number: 10777-12S
Judge: Morrison
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/18/2013
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 BRADLEY GLAZER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 10777-12S. ) 3 ) ) ) ORDER OF SERVICE OF TRANSCRIPT Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure, there is transmitted herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Judge Richard T. Morrison, at Cleveland, Ohio, on February 28, 2013, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be issued and a decision will be entered under Rule 155. (Signed) Richard T. Morrison Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 18, 2013 SERVEg MAR 1 8 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .Bench Opinion by Judge Richard T. Morrison February 28, 2013 Bradley Glazer v..Commissioner Docket No. 10777-12S THE COURT: The Court had 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 on as precedent in any other case. This proceeding for the redetermination of deficiency is a small tax case conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. References to sections are to the Inte Revenue Code in ef for the taxab ear 2008. 19 Referen to rules are to the Tax Court Rules of 20 21 22 23 24 25 Éractice and Procedure. 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 Practice and Procedure. All references to sections are to sections of the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the 2009 tax year, unless otherwise noted. Bradley Glazer, the Petitioner, appeared pro se. Nancy P. Klingshirn appeared on behalf of the Respondent. On April 16, 2012, the Respondent issued a statutory notice of deficiency to Mr. Glazer for his 2009 tax year. In the notice, the Respondent determined that Mr. Glazer had a deficiency of $3,128. ! The Respondent conceded at trial that Mr. 12 Glazer was entitled to deduct alimony payments of 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $7,553 made to his first wife, Madra Glazer, during 2009. Therefore, the sole issue remaining for decision is whether Mr. Glazer is entitled to deduct $18,161.74 in alimony payments he claims that he made to his second wife, Helena Glazer, during 2009. Alimony payments are deductible. Sec. 215(a). limony payments are defined by the Code to include only payments received "under a divorce or separation ins trument . " Secs . 215 (b) , 71 (b) (1) , 71 (b) (1) (A) . Mr. Glazer met Helena in Russia in 1995. They were married in January¥ 1996. In order to 7 secure a resident alien card for Helena, Mr. Glazer signed an affidavit, Form I-864, which obligated him 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to support Helena. She received a resident alien card. In 1997, while living in Mr. Glazer's house, Helena reported Mr. Glazer to the police for an act of domestic violence. A state court entered a .temporary protection order prohibiting Mr. Glazer from entering the house for two years. The order also required Mr. Glazer to pay certain types of 8 Helena's living expenses for two years. 9 · In 200 Mr. Glazer and Helena were 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 divorced. The judgment entry of divorce provided: "Neither party shall pay the other any sum as and for spousal support, and no Court shall retain jurisdiction to grant spousal support." Although the record supports the proposition that Helena received some payments from r. Glazer, these payments were not received "under" å divorce or separation instrument. The 2001 judgment is the "instrument" by which there was a divorce between Mr. Glazer and Helena. The judgment clid not require Mr Glazer to make any payments to 7 Helena. Therefore, none of the payments to Helena in 2009 be considered to have been received "under" the judgment. The Form I-864 that Mr. Glazer in 1996 shortly after he married Helena pbliged him to 7 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 provide support to Helena. See D v. Davis, No. 2 WD-04-020, 2004 Ohio 6892, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 6389 3 *P15 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. 2004) ("By executing the 4 Affidavit of Support, the sponsor is obligated to 5 maintain the sponsored immigrant at or above a 6 7 8 9 financial level equal to 125% of the official poverty line. 8 U.S.C. 1183a(a) (1) (A)."). It has often been held that an obligation under a Form I-864 continues even after divorce. See Moody v. Sorokina, 830 10 N.Y.S.2d 399, 402 (N.Y. App. Div--4th Dep't 2007). 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 In this respect, a Form I-864 obligation is similar to a spousal-support obligation that is often found in a divorce judgment. And divorce judgments are sometimes written so as to enforce a pre-existing Form I-864 obligation. See Greenleaf v. Greenleaf, 2011 Mich. App. LEXIS 1718 (state trial court Ëandling the divorce had jurisdiction to enforce the Form I-864) However, the particular divorce judgment governing Mr. Glazer did not require any spousal- support payments and did not require Mr. Glazer to comport with his Form I-864 obligation. Thus, if Mr. 23 Glazer had failed to support Helena, he would not 24 25 have been in breach of the divorce judgment. Any breach would have been of his Form I-864 obligation. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 See Skorychenko v. Tompkins, Docket 08-cv-626- bbc, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89536 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2009) (failure by husband to provide monetary assistance to ex-wife violated the Form I-864 obligation). Therefore, his payments to Helena pursuant to his Form I-864 obligation were not payments received under the divorce judgment. Similarly, any payments required by the 1997 temporary protection order were not received under the divorce judgment or a divorce instrument. We hold that no payments by Mr. Glazer to Helena during 2009 are deductible alimony payments. Exhibit 9-P is excluded from evidence. Our Findings of Fact are based on the preponderance of the evidence. An appropriate order will be issued and a decision will be entered under Rule 155 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com