Steves v. Comm'r

2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 80, 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 80
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 21, 2013
DocketDocket Nos. 3561-12S, 3562-12S
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 80 (Steves v. Comm'r) 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
Steves v. Comm'r, 2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 80, 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 80 (tax 2013).

Opinion

MARK A. STEVES AND STACEY L. STEVES, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent;
MARK A. STEVES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Steves v. Comm'r
Docket Nos. 3561-12S, 3562-12S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2013-80; 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 80;
October 21, 2013, Filed

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

*80

Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.

P. Elizabeth Pirsch, for petitioners.
Christopher R. Moran, for respondent.
CHIECHI, Judge.

CHIECHI
SUMMARY OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: These consolidated cases were heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petitions were filed. 1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decisions to be entered are not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

Respondent determined deficiencies of $21,341.29 and $22,512.37 in the Federal income tax (tax) of petitioner Mark A. Steves (Mr. Steves) for his taxable years 2007 and 2008, respectively, and a deficiency of $32,102.52 in the tax of Mr. Steves and petitioner Stacey L. Steves (Ms. Steves) for their taxable year 2009.

The issue remaining for decision is whether certain payments that Mr. Steves made during 2007, 2008, and 2009 constitute alimony deductible under section 215 for those respective years. We hold that they do not.

Background

All *81 of the facts in these cases, which the parties submitted under Rule 122, have been stipulated by the parties and are so found.

Mr. Steves and Ms. Steves resided in Virginia at the time the respective petitions in these cases were filed.

Around June 24, 2005, Mr. Steves and Carolyn Louise Robards (Ms. Robards), who were married on July 1, 1995, jointly purchased certain real property (Braddock Road property) at 7117 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia. Mr. Steves and Ms. Robards financed the purchase of the Braddock Road property with a mortgage loan (mortgage) that they obtained from HSBC Mortgage Corp. Since Mr. Steves and Ms. Robards purchased the Braddock Road property to at least March 14, 2013, they coowned that property and were coobligors on the mortgage.

At a time not established by the record, Mr. Steves and Ms. Robards decided to end their marriage. Around May 25 and June 2, 2006, Ms. Robards and Mr. Steves, respectively, signed a document titled "SUPPORT AND PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT" (settlement agreement), pursuant to which they intended to "make a full, final, complete and equitable property division, a final settlement, adjustment, compromise and determination of all *82 right of support and maintenance by either party against the other by reason of their marriage, and to adjust and settle any and all other rights either may have against the other arising out of the marriage". The settlement agreement provided in pertinent part:

6. SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE. Each party understands that he or she may be entitled to alimony, spousal support and maintenance and that, under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, either party can request a reservation of the right to receive alimony. They further understand that if a court makes an award of alimony, that award may be increased or decreased by the court upon proper motion due to a change in circumstances. However, they understand that if any amount of alimony is specified in a written agreement between them or is waived, then such waiver or agreed alimony payment cannot thereafter be changed by the court unless agreed to by the parties. Taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, the financial circumstances of the parties, their employment, income and income potentials, and the division of marital property provided for elsewhere in this Agreement, *83 the parties agree as follows with regard to spousal support.

A. Dr. Steves neither seeks, desires nor requires the payment of spousal support from Ms. Robards, now or in the future. Accordingly, Dr. Steves hereby waives and releases any right that he may have for alimony, support and maintenance or for a reservation of alimony, support and maintenance from Ms. Robards, * * *

B. Dr. Steves shall pay to Ms. Robards for alimony, spousal support and maintenance the sum of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) per month, commencing on the first day of the month after Ms. Robards moves into the Braddock Road Prop erty, and continuing on the first calendar day of each month thereafter for twelve (12) years or until Dr. Steves has made one-hundred and forty-four (144) monthly spousal support payments in the amount set forth herein.

(i) Dr. Steves' obligation to pay spousal support to Ms. Robards pursuant to this Agreement shall end on the earliest to occur of the following events: a) the death of either party; (b) the remarriage of Ms. Robards; c) Ms. Robards' habitual cohabitation for a period of twelve months or longer in a relationship analogous to a marriage; or (d) Dr. Steves having *84 made 144 monthly spousal support payments to Ms. Robards as set forth above.

* * * *

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

Related

Mark A. & Stacey L. Steves v. Commissioner
2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 80 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 80, 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steves-v-commr-tax-2013.