DocketNumber: Docket No. 10470-76.
Filed Date: 4/2/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DAWSON,
FINDINGS OF FACT
All the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts, the supplemental stipulation of facts, and the exhibits attached to each are incorporated herein by this reference.
At the time he filed his petition, petitioner resided at San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Petitioner was previously married to Caridad Hernandez Figueroa. One child, a daughter, was born of that marriage. Petitioner and Caridad were divorced in 1973. By the divorce decree, petitioner was ordered to pay $ 200 a month "alimony for the benefit of his minor daughter" and to continue mortgage payments on the marital home owned jointly by petitioner and Caridad after their divorce and occupied by Caridad and their daughter.
In 1974, petitioner paid $ 2,400 alimony for support of his daughter and $ 1,812 on the mortgage, as ordered. Of petitioner's total mortgage payments, $ 738.30 represented principal and $ 1,073.70 represented interest.
Petitioner expended no more than $ 135.72 for medicines*589 and drugs and no more than $ 1,665.94 for medical insurance and medical and dental care in 1974. He did not make charitable contributions in excess of $ 156.
On his Federal income tax return for 1974, petitioner claimed an itemized deduction of $ 2,400 for alimony paid. Respondent disallowed that deduction, but allowed $ 906 as a deduction in lieu thereof, being half of the amount of the mortgage payments. This substitute deduction was allowed on the basis that the property with respect to which the mortgage payments were made was owned jointly by petitioner and Caridad following their divorce and, thus, half of the amount of each payment of the mortgage inured to Caridad's benefit.
OPINION
Under
On his 1974 return, petitioner deducted $ 1,077.30 for interest paid on the home mortgage. In his notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed $ 536.85, being half of the interest portion of the mortgage payments made pursuant to the divorce decree. Respondent having determined that petitioner is entitled to a deduction under
Respondent disallowed $ 684.28 of the amount claimed by petitioner on his return as having been expended for medicines and drugs and allowed $ 16.96 more than petitioner claimed on his return for qualifying insurance and medical and dental care, making a net disallowance adjustment of $ 667.32. Respondent also disallowed $ 234 of the amount claimed by petitioner in his return as a deduction for charitable contributions. Petitioner having failed to show that he expended more for deductible medical expenses or that he made qualifying charitable contributions in amounts in excess of those allowed by respondent, respondent's determinations as to them are sustained.
In accordance with the foregoing,
1. Pursuant to General Order No. 6, the post-trial procedures set forth in
2. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, unless otherwise indicated.↩
3. See, also,
4. We do not disturb respondent's allowance in the notice of deficiency of $ 906 as an alimony deduction. That is not raised as an issue herein.↩