Slow start to 2013 in Tax Court, just one Section 7463 that’s the ordinary substantiation rehash, so let’s go to the Designated Hitters. Judge Morrison denies summary judgment to Brad Glazer, in Bradley Glazer, Docket No. 10777-12S, filed 1/2/13, on his alimony deductions for both of his ex-wives.

Brad claims Madra, Wife No. 1, was entitled to alimony per their divorce decree if her disability payments were cut or extinguished. But he only proffers the decree allegedly supporting this claim in his reply to IRS’ response to Brad’s motion for summary judgment.

No good, says Judge Morrison: “Respondent has not had a chance to respond to petitioner’s reply or to the documents attached to this reply. Rather than ordering further briefing of the summary-judgment motion, it is more efficient to leave these documents to be introduced by petitioner at trial and for respondent to present his views of the documents then.” Order, p. 1.

Summary judgment means “marshal and lay bare your proofs” to begin with, right? Brad didn’t, so Brad’s payments to Mad, and the basis therefor and the deductibility thereof, must await the trial.

And Brad has another alimony issue, this time with Wife No. 2, Helena.  Here again Brad pays and wants the deduction. And again Judge Morrison squelches him: “However, his 2001 divorce decree from Helena Glazer made no provision for ongoing alimony payments. Although petitioner alleges that his signature on a Form I-864 imposed on him an obligation to provide support to Helena Glazer, petitioner did not show through acceptable documents, affidavits, or sworn declarations, that he signed any Form I-864.” Order, p. 2.

So Brad must prove Mad’s entitlement, and deal with Helena and the elusive I-864. Should be a fun trial.

Incidentally, I-864 is not a six-lane horror show with feeder roads and fast fooderies, but rather an Affidavit of Support for immigration purposes.