Attorney-at-Law

“BLESS THE CHILD THAT GOT ITS OWN”

In Uncategorized on 07/18/2022 at 16:35

Despite some artful shucking-and-jiving by their trusty attorneys, aided and abetted by Los Angeles Superior Court, ex-Ch J Michael B (“Iron Mike”) Thornton echoes the immortal song-of-the-century words from the immortal Lady Day in Alejandro J. Rojas and Elena G. Rojas, T. C. Memo. 2022-77, filed 7/18/22.

Al took a $68K Section 215 alimony deduction when same was still legal for payment to loved-once Cristina. The Angelino Sup Ct decree of dissolution said no spousal support, no child support, but family support. Of course, family support ends when their two kids emancipate, but decreases if Cristina remarries before. Section 71(c)(2), anyone?

“Petitioners argue that because the divorce instrument contains both a child-related contingency (‘until both minor children emancipate’) and a spouse-related contingency (until Cristina remarries), section 71(c)(2)(A) is inapplicable to this ‘mixed contingency.’ Petitioners’ argument is unavailing.” T. C. Memo. 2022-77, at p. 4.

This opinion coming from Ex-Ch J Iron Mike, there follows much “somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent.”

Trusty attorneys try again. “Petitioners argue that because the L.A. Superior Court stated in its… order that ‘there is no current child support order,’ the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, precludes this Court from characterizing the family support payments as nondeductible child support. Petitioners’ reliance on the L.A. Superior Court’s order and the Full Faith and Credit Act is misplaced. In the first place, the L.A. Superior Court’s order merely reflects that under the express terms of the divorce instrument the payments in question were labeled neither as ‘child support’ nor as ‘spousal support’ but rather as ‘family support,’ which under California law represents combined, but unallocated, child support and spousal support. More fundamentally, federal law rather than state law governs the federal income tax treatment of such payments.” T. C. Memo. 2022-77, at p. 5.

Finally, trusty attorneys try an equitable argument, but ex-Ch J Iron Mike is the last judge with whom I’d try that move. His reply echoes some recent Supremacies: “Go tell it to Congress.” Pore l’il ol’ Tax Court has no equitable jurisdiction.

So the child has got its own, and whatever Mama may have, and Papa may have, they have no deduction.

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 )

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: