TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Joy Harris
Docket Number: 26152-06S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/23/2008
Pages: 5

ADM . RECORDED 1 SERVIC E CAL . STAT . S .T . JUDGE UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 20217 JOY HARRIS, Petitioner, v . ) Docket No . 26152-06S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . 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 to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at St . Louis, Missouri, on May 21, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent ., (Signed) Lewis R . Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 23, 2008 SERVED JUN 2 4 20 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 May '21, 200 8 3 Harris v . Commissioner Docket No . 26152-06S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to rende r 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 6 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion . The oral findings of fact an d 8 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case . 10 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 11 deficiency is Small Tax Case conducted pursuant to 12 the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue 13 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of 14 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 15 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 16 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 17 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 18 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 19 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, section 20 references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 21 as amended, in effect for 2004 . 22 Joy Harris appeared pro se . Michael W . 23 Bitner appeared on behalf of respondent . 24 In a notice of deficiency dated Septembe r 25 11, 2006, respondent determined a $2,278 deficiency i n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Further along in that section, following the 2 word "maintenance," petitioner's former spouse i s 3 ordered to pay to petitioner $1,800 per month "as and 4 for maintenance" pursuant to the terms set forth in an 5 attachment to the divorce instrument . As it turne d 6 out, fg such payments totaling $9,000 were made to A % J v 4\ A 7 petitioner during 2004 (collectively, the payment) . 8 Petitioner did not include the payment in 9 the income reported on her timely-filed 2004 Federa l 10 income tax return . In the notice of deficiency that 11 forms the basis for this case, respondent determined 12 that the payment is includable as alimony i n 13 petitioner's 2004 income . Another adjustment made in 14 the notice of deficiency is computational and need not 15 be addressed . 16 In general, gross income includes amounts 17 received by a taxpayer as alimony or separat e 18 maintenance . Secs . 61(a)(8) and 71(a) . Section 19 71(b)(1) defines alimony or separate maintenance a s 20 any cash payment that satisfies four criteria provided 21 in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of that section . 22 Respondent's position implies that the payment here 23 under consideration satisfies all four criteria . 24 Petitioner does not contend otherwise, but argues that 25 in reality, the payment should be considered as child Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 support, because the payment, or at least a large 2 portion of it, was used for the support of he r 3 children . 4 Although not expressly referred to by 5 petitioner, she apparently relies upon section 71(c), 6 which provides, in essence, that payments received as 7 child support are not includable in the recipient' s 8 income . We agree that section 71(c) operates t o 9 exclude child support payments from the income of the 10 recipient, and we further agree with petitioner' s 11 observation that raising children is an expensive 12 proposition . Nevertheless, a fair reading of the 13 divorce instrument constrains us to rejec t 14 petitioner's suggestion that the payment represents 15 child support rather than spousal maintenance . 16 Petitioner's understanding, or misunderstanding, of 17 the clear terms of the divorce instrument in no way 18 alters those terms . 19 The payment clearly fits within th e 20 definition of alimony as provided in section 71(b) . 21 Section 71(c), simply put, has no application here . 22 The payment is includable in petitioner's 2004 income, 23 and respondent's determination to that end i s 24 sustained . 25 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 entered for respondent . 2 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 3 fact and opinion in this case , 4 (Whereupon , at 10 : 41 a .m ., the bench opinion 5 in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 2 4 25 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888