Walter Oliver Melvin v. Commissioner ( 2008 )

T.C. Memo. 2008-115UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WALTER OLIVER MELVIN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 21192-06. Filed April 28, 2008.
Walter Oliver Melvin, pro se.
Lynn M. Curry, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
SWIFT, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,500
in petitioner’s 2003 Federal income tax. The issue for decision
is whether petitioner is entitled to a $6,000 alimony deduction.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2003.
- 2 -
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
At the time of filing the petition, petitioner resided in
Florida.
On September 30, 1969, petitioner was married to Barbara Ann
Melvin (Barbara). Two children were born of this marriage.
During the marriage, petitioner was a practicing lawyer in
North Carolina.
In a May 8, 1985, judgment of divorce issued by the General
Court of Justice, Cumberland County, North Carolina, petitioner
and Barbara were divorced, and among other things petitioner was
ordered under N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. sec. 50-16.3 (repealed 1995)
to pay Barbara $500 a month, or a total of $6,000 a year, in
“permanent alimony.” Petitioner also was ordered to pay Barbara
other funds and to transfer to Barbara certain real and personal
property of the marriage. Consequently, petitioner transferred
significant property and funds to Barbara but none in 2003.
On his 2003 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed a
$6,000 deduction under section 215 for alimony paid to Barbara.
OPINION
Under section 71(b)(1) the term alimony is defined as, among
other things, a “payment in cash”.
- 3 -
Section 215(a) provides that alimony deductions are allowed
for payments “paid during * * * [a taxpayer’s] taxable year.”
The regulations under section 215 provide that alimony deductions
are allowed for payments “actually paid by the taxpayer during
his taxable year”. Sec. 1.215-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner acknowledges that he did not pay Barbara any
alimony in 2003. Petitioner, however, claims that the
significant funds and property that he transferred to Barbara in
1985 included “advance” alimony payments of $6,000 for each
subsequent year, including a $6,000 advance payment of alimony
for 2003. Petitioner’s claimed $6,000 alimony deduction for 2003
is based on this alleged 1985 “advance” payment.
Coleman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-442, is an
analogous case. Therein, a divorced wife sought to allocate
alimony arrearages received in 1984 to earlier years. We
concluded that she was required to report all of the alimony
received in 1984 in her 1984 income.
Petitioner refers us to Hawkins v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 982(10th Cir. 1996), revg. 102 T.C. 61 (1994), and Hoover v.
Commissioner, 102 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo.
1995-183. Neither case is in point. Hawkins, involved the
question of whether a marital settlement agreement incorporated
into a divorce decree constituted a qualified domestic relations
order. Hoover, involved the question of whether payments
- 4 -
terminated upon an ex-spouse’s death so as to qualify as alimony.
Neither case supports the $6,000 alimony deduction petitioner
claims for 2003.
Petitioner is not entitled to the claimed $6,000 alimony
deduction for 2003.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.