Maytag v. Commissioner

1965 T.C. Memo. 313, 24 T.C.M. 1746, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 17
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedDecember 3, 1965
DocketDocket No. 729-64.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1965 T.C. Memo. 313 (Maytag v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maytag v. Commissioner, 1965 T.C. Memo. 313, 24 T.C.M. 1746, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 17 (tax 1965).

Opinion

L. B. Maytag, Jr., and Marquita M. Maytag v. Commissioner.
Maytag v. Commissioner
Docket No. 729-64.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1965-313; 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 17; 24 T.C.M. (CCH) 1746; T.C.M. (RIA) 65313;
December 3, 1965
William A. McDonald and Claude M. Maer, Jr., for the petitioners. Williard A. Herbert, for the respondent.

WITHEY

Memorandum Opinion

WITHEY, Judge: Respondent has determined deficiencies in the income tax of petitioners for the taxable years 1960 and 1961 in the respective amounts of $11,745.16 and $17,221.33. The only issue presented is whether respondent has erred in disallowing a deduction for each such year representing amounts received by petitioner L. B. Maytag, Jr.'s (hereinafter sometimes referred to as petitioner) former wife from the income of a support trust established by petitioner in pursuance of a predivorce*18 agreement.

All of the facts have been agreed to and are found herein as stipulated.

Petitioners are husband and wife who reside in or near Colorado Springs, Colorado. Marquita M. Maytag is a petitioner in this case for no other reason than she filed joint income tax returns with her husband, petitioner L. B. Maytag, Jr. They filed timely joint income tax returns, employing the cash method of accounting, for the calendar years 1960 and 1961, with the district director of internal revenue for the district of Colorado.

Petitioners claimed three dependency deductions in their 1960 and 1961 income tax returns, one for each of them and the third for their daughter, Marquita.

Petitioners' return for 1960 showed a tax liability of $168,870.10, which was fully paid, pursuant to an extension of time for filing, by May 18, 1961. Of this payment, $260.93 was refunded in 1962.

Petitioners' return for 1961 showed a tax liability of $205,458.67 which was paid, under section 6513(b), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, on April 15, 1962.

In his notice of deficiency the respondent determined that petitioners' income was understated in the amounts of $20,612.78 in 1960*19 and $25,587.22 in 1961, being amounts distributed to Lucretia D. Maytag (hereinafter referred to as Lucretia), the divorced wife of petitioner L. B. Maytag, Jr., by the Lucretia D. Maytag Support Trust.

On June 1, 1958, L. B. Maytag, Jr., and Lucretia entered into an agreement which read as follows:

THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this 1st day of June, 1958, by and between LUCRETIA D. MAYTAG, hereinafter called the "wife", and L. B. MAYTAG, JR., hereinafter called the "husband";

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the parties are living separate and apart and contemplate that the wife will institute a divorce action against the husband, and the parties are desirous of amicably settling all questions of property, property division and property rights, alimony, both temporary and permanent, support money, support and maintenance of children, and all other allowances, divisions and awards.

IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the parties:

1. That the wife shall have custody of the three minor children of the parties and the husband shall have rights of visitation to see or call upon said children at all reasonable times, giving to the wife prior notice of his intentions*20 so to call or see said children. The husband shall also have the right to have said children with him during a portion of vacations or holidays when such visitation shall not unduly interfere with the education or normal routine of said children.

2. The husband has heretofore assigned, set over or conveyed to the wife securities having a present market value of $56,804.63, and he agrees to forthwith transfer, assign and set over to the wife additional securities of a type satisfactory to the wife and having a present market value sufficient so that when taken in connection with the present market value of the securities previously transferred and assigned the total market value as of this date will be $100,000.00.

3. The husband further agrees that he will forthwith upon the execution of this Agreement transfer, set over and assign to the wife unencumbered merchantable title to the property now occupied by the wife and located at 6 El Encanto, Broadmoor, El Paso County, Colorado, and, in addition, the husband agrees to assume and pay the following described bills in connection with the alteration, improvement and landscaping of said property:

Lawn$850.00
Landscaping880.68
Curtains in basement250.00
Finish-up items, such as screen
doors, incinerator, curbing, etc.
payable to contractor750.00
Bookcase and radio unit purchased
through Harry Francis850.00
Gravel for driveway - approximately75.00

*21 4. The husband agrees that he will assign and set over, by Bill of Sale or other proper instrument, all of his right, title and interest in and to all of the furniture, furnishings and equipment located in the property at 6 El Encanto Road; provided, however, that it is mutually agreed between the parties that the husband shall keep and retain, as his sole property the piano which was a gift from the husband's aunt.

5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Claus A. Cosman and Dorothy Cosman v. The United States
440 F.2d 1017 (Court of Claims, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1965 T.C. Memo. 313, 24 T.C.M. 1746, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maytag-v-commissioner-tax-1965.