TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Christopher R. Sexton
Docket Number: 18443-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/29/2009
Pages: 4

&11\ ( "rV-p C, UNITED STATES TAX COURT .WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 CHRISTOPHER R . SEXTON , Petitioner , P V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Pocket No . 18443-08 S O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax CourtlRules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at San Francisco, California on June 16, 2009, containing her 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 under Rule 155 . (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 29, 2009 SERVED JUN 2 9 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane Kroupa June 16, 200 9 2 Christopher R . Sexton vs . Commissioner Docket No . 18443-08 S 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 4 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following 5 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 6 These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relie d 7 upon as precedent in any other case . 8 This proceeding was heardias a small tax case, 9 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 10 through 175 . All section references are to the Interna l 11 Revenue Code for the year 2005, which year shall be referre d 12 to as the year at issue . And all rules references are to 13 the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure . 14 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 15 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 16 Christopher Sexton appeared on his own behalf, and 17 Lesley Hale appeared on behalf of Respondent . 18 FINDINGS OF FAC T 19 Petitioner claimed a $15,;000 deduction for alimony 20 he paid to his ex-wife during 2005 . On the return 21 Petitioner deducted $1500 a month times the 10 months he was 22 required to pay his ex-wife in 2005 . At trial, however , 23 Petitioner asserts that he made payments to his ex-wife in 24 2005 before the March 1st, 2005, effective date of hi s 25 divorce decree that he now seeks to claim . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Respondent concedes that Petitioner is entitled to 2 deduct $10,468 .24 of alimony Petitioner paid to his ex-wife 3 after March 1st, 2005, through the end of the year . 4 Respondent issued a statutory deficiency notice t o 5 Petitioner, dated April 28th, 2008,determining a $459 6 6 deficiency in Petitioner's federal income tax by disallowing 7 the $15,000 alimony deduction Petitioner claimed . 8 Petitioner timely filed a petition to contest the 9 deficiency determination . At the time he filed the 10 petition, Petitioner resided in California . 11 OPINION 12 The sole issue for decision is whether payments 13 Petitioner may have made to his ex-wife in 2005 before the 14 March 1st, 2005, effective date of the divorce decree ar e 15 deductible as alimony . An individual is allowed a deduction 16 equal to the alimony or separate maintenance payments paid 17 during the individual's taxable year . Sec . 215(a) . 18 The term 'alimony or separate maintenance payment' 19 is defined in section 71(b) . There are six requirement s 20 under section 71(b) for payments to be treated as alimony . 21 The parties do not dispute that Petitioner satisfies all of 22 the requirements except for the amounts exceedin g 23 $10,468 .24, which Respondent concedes are amounts Petitioner 24 paid to his ex-wife after the March 1st, 2005, effectiv e 25 date of their divorce decree . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 With respect to the $4531 .76 difference , 2 Respondent argues that Petitioner failed to prove that th e 3 amount was paid to his ex-wife under a divorce or separation 4 agreement, as required in section 71(b)(1)(A) . We agree . 5 Petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitled 6 to deduct more than the $10,468 .24 that Respondent concedes 7 was paid pursuant to the divorce decree effective as of 8 March 1st, 2005 . Petitioner has failed to prove that any 9 amounts he may have paid before March 1st, 2005, were paid 10 pursuant to any valid divorce or separation agreement . 11 To reflect the foregoing and Respondent's 12 concession, decision will be entered under Rule 155 . 13 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 14 and opinion in this case . 15 (Whereupon, at 5 :57 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 16 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 / / 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888