Pierson v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Payment of $ 1,100 to petitioner in 1948 by a corporation of which her former husband had been an officer, in discharge of his obligation for alimony payments, is held taxable to her as alimony income under section 22 (k) of the Code; and her failure to file a return for that year subjects her to the 25 per cent negligence penalty imposed under section 291 (a) of the Code.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Nice, Judge:
Petitioner argues that $1,100 of the total sum of $2,100, which she received from the Arthur N. Pierson Corporation in 1948, is not taxable to her as alimony income because it represented a gift from the company. This is true, she says, because the company was not reimbursed by her former husband nor could it deduct such amount from his salary, since it was then inactive.
We think this argument is totally without merit. Petitioner received and accepted such sum from the corporation in satisfaction of her husband’s obligation for support and maintenance under the divorce…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Luckenbach v. PedrickDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1953
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pierson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1954