Sklar v. Commissioner

Decided November 30, 1953

United States Tax Court · decided 1953-11-30

A document entitled decree was entered and filed in the divorce proceedings between petitioner and her husband. Held: amounts paid petitioner, being solely for support of the minor child, are not includible in her income.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Examination of all of the facts persuades us that the final decree of the state court upon the hearing of the divorce case between petitioner and her husband, and each of the amendatory orders thereafter which had to do only with the amounts to be paid petitioner, provided that the entire sum here in controversy was for the support of the child alone and not in any part for the support of petitioner. The original order and the orders amendatory thereof were in error in stating otherwise, and the last order of the court merely corrected that error. In this respect this case is distinguishable from Peter Van Vlaanderen, 10 T. C. 706 , affd. 175 F. 2d 389 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Vargason v. Commissioner

Relies on Van Vlaanderen v. Commissioner · Van Vlaanderen v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decision will be entered for the petitioner · Decided 1953-11-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2000

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION.

Withey, Judge:

¶2Examination of all of the facts persuades us that the final decree of the state court upon the hearing of the divorce case between petitioner and her husband, and each of the amendatory orders, thereafter which had to do only with the amounts to be paid petitioner, provided that the entire sum here in controversy was for the support of the child alone and not in any part for the support of petitioner. The original order and the orders amendatory thereof were in error in stating otherwise, and the last order of the court merely corrected that error. In this respect this case is distinguishable from Peter Van Vlaanderen, 10 T. C. 706, affd. 175 F. 2d 389.

¶3Reviewed by the Court.

¶4Decision will be entered for the petitioner.

Hill, /., dissents.