¶1dissenting: I agree with the dissenting opinion of Judge Eaum, but I wish to add a word about Jane U. Elliott, 40 T.C. 304, upon which the majority relies in part. I regard it as distinguishable. In the instant case, expenses were incurred in order to establish petitioner’s right to alimony, plainly a “personal” or “family” right. In Elliott, on the other hand, the right to alimony had already been established, and the expenses were incurred merely in order to effect collection of a fixed obligation, just as they might have been incurred by a noteholder seeking to collect interest on his note- or a lessor seeking to collect rent from his lessee. Since Elliott is distinguishable I see no reason to extend it to reach an unsound result.
42 T.C. 706
Wild v. Commissioner
Decided July 13, 1964
United States Tax Court · decided 1964-07-13
Held, amounts paid by a wife to her attorneys allocable to obtaining alimony includable in her gross income are deductible under section 212(1), 1954 Code. Held: amounts paid by a wife to her attorneys allocable to obtaining alimony includable in her gross income are deductible under section 212(1), 1954 Code.
Relies on Elliott v. Commissioner
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decision will be entered for the petitioner · Decided 1964-07-13
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2018
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 →