Attorney-at-Law

BENEFIT PERFORMANCE

In Uncategorized on 09/02/2020 at 16:00

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 made alimony nondeductible to the payor and non-taxable income to the payee. But pre-2018 divorce agreements continue unchanged while unmodified (in which event further hoops must be jumped through), so Michelle L. Romanowski, Docket No. 15816-19S, filed 9/2/20, may yet be relevant.

Both Michelle and IRS want summary J. Neither gets all of it, but Michelle gets tossed, while IRS only gets some. Thereby hangs the tale.

IRS first stung Michelle’s loved-once with a deficiency, but he showed expenses paid per the temporary maintenance order. So IRS gave Michelle a SNOD, as she reported nothing.

Michelle’s loved-once made mortgage payments on family home that he vacated. But since Michelle claims she never saw loved-once’s numbers, she’s raised a question of fact. Loved-once claimed the interest deduction on his return, as well as claiming it as part of  the alimony he paid. Nice try. So calculating which was what is a question of fact. As for paydown of the mortgage, that secured Michelle’s dwelling, so she got a benefit. And since she and loved-once held title as husband and wife, by State law (NY) her interest in the family home ceases at her death, so further payments not for her benefit, satisfying Section 71(d).

Utilities for the family home, even though billed to loved-once, benefit Michelle, so they’re in. So are the lease payments on the Land Rover for the months she had it.

Unallocated cash payments are taxable to Michelle.” We have previously rejected the argument that unallocated support allocations are not alimony because they could be part of the payor’s child support obligations under State law. See Berry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-91, 2005 WL 950117, at *14; see also Okerson v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 264 (holding that whether the document characterizes a payment as alimony ‘has no effect on the consequences of that payment for Federal income tax purposes.’) (quoting Hoover v. Commissioner, 102 F.3d 842, 844 (6th Cir. 1996), affg T. C. Memo. 1995-183). And petitioner does not allege that Mr. Romanowski did not make these payments. Based on the undisputed facts before us, we conclude that the semi-monthly payments were taxable alimony payments.” Order, at p. 4.

Health insurance payments were made for both Michelle and kids, but the evidence shows only lump-sum, so question of fact which payments benefited only Michelle.

The Court-ordered professional evaluation fees (probably for determining child custody) are neither alimony, nor income to Michelle, nor deductible.

So the unallocated payments, the Land Rover lease rent, and utilities are in as alimony, and presumably deductions for love-once. Mortgage payments and health insurance are questions of fact. Professional evaluation fees are out both ways.

Does payee benefit is the question.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: