Public-domain · open source

177 F.2d 198

Docket No. 10406.

Budd v. Commissioner

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 5, 1947.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1947-05-05

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 1966 · most notably Weil v. Commissioner (1957), Mandel v. Commissioner (1950)

20 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“§ 22 * * * (k) Alimony, etc., income. In the case of a wife who is divorced or legally separated from her husband under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance, periodic payments (whether or not made at regular intervals) received subsequent to such decree in discharge of, or attributable to property transferred (in trust or otherwise) in discharge of, a legal obligation which, because of the marital or family relationship, is imposed upon or incurred by such husband under such decree or under a written instrument incident to such divorce or separation shall be includible in the gross income of such wife, and such amounts received as are attributable to property so transferred shall not be includible in the gross income of such husband. This subsection shall not apply to that part of any such periodic payment which the terms of the decree or written instrument fix, in terms of an amount of money or a portion of the payment, as a sum which is payable for the support of minor children of such husband. In case any such periodic payment is less than the amount specified in the decree or written instrument, for the purpose of applying the preceding sentence, such payment, to the extent of such sum payable for such support, shall be considered a payment for such support.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Mandel v. Commissioner, Weil v. Commissioner

“We agree with the Tax Court that in considering the separation instrument as a whole it becomes clear that of the $6,000 paid to the wife for the taxable year, a minimum of $200 per month is earmarked for the support of the petitioner's minor son.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Mandel v. Commissioner

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 22

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1947-05-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1T. G. Thompson, Cleveland, Ohio, Way-land K. Sullivan, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.

¶2Douglas W. McGregor, J. P. Wenchel, Sewall Key, John W. Smith, Helen R. Car-loss and Muriel S. Paul, Washington, D. G, for respondent.

¶3Before HICKS, SIMONS and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The question here is whether in re-computing the income of the petitioner for the taxable year ending December 31, 1943, the respondent rightly included in the petitioner’s income the sum of $2400 out of $6,000 deducted by the petitioner as alimony payments under a separation agreement between the petitioner and his wife, in view of the language of § 22(k) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 22(k), and Regulation 111, § 29.22(k)-1(d).

¶6Section 22 (k) provides- in substance that alimony payments constitute taxable income of the wife but that the subsection does not apply to any periodic payments which the terms of the decree- or written instrument fix as a sum which: is- payable for the support of minor children. We agree with the Tax Court that in considering the separation instrument as a; whole it becomes clear that of the $6,000'- paid to the wife for the taxable year, a> minimum of $200 per month is earmarked for the support of the petitioner’s minor son.

¶7Wherefore, the decision of the-Tax Court sustaining the deficiency assessment of the respondent is hereby affirmed' upon the reasoning of the Tax Court’s opinion.