"Mike" <mickey9365[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

If it's not alimony, what is it?

Family support works, but child support does not. It sure
doesn't sound like a property division, though I suppose it
could be depending on the circumstances.

Stu

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Herb Smith" <smithff33[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

He makes the payments directly. BTW, one important piece of
info I left out......we're in TX and have no alimony here.

mike

Moderator:
Since Texas has no State income tax (yet!), there is no
Teaxas issue here. The IRC determines what is alimony
for federal tax purposes.

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Herb Smith" <smithff33[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -

I assume he is liable for the mortgage debt, but I still
don't see a Schedule A deduction. That's available only for
home mortgage interest (it's no longer his primary or second
home) or investment interest (he has no ownership interest).

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Herb Smith <smithf...[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

Dick - No argument there, according to this statement in Pub
17:

"Cash payments, checks, or money orders, to a third party on
behalf of your spouse under the terms of your divorce or
separation instrument can be alimony, if they otherwise
qualify. These include payments for your spouse's medical
expenses, housing costs (rent, utilities, etc.), taxes,
tuition, etc. The payments are treated as received by your
spouse and then paid to the third party. "

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Mike" <mickey9...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Does the husband make the payments directly, or give the ex
the money and she makes the payments?

If the latter, you might be able to make a case for this
being alimony or spousal support - deductible as an "above
the line" deduction on his 1040 form. Concurrently, the
ex-wife would have to claim this alimony as taxable income,
but could deduct the interest and property taxes on her
1040/Schedule A.

For him to be able to deduct these items on his Schedule A,
he must have an ownership interest (taxes) or be liable for
the mortgage debt.

Moderator:
Sticking ny neck out without reading the code: I would
argue that the direct payments to the mortgage lender are
for the economic benefit of the ex-spouse and as such are
alimony unless the divorce decree or the code say
different.

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Mike" <mickey9365[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

None that I can think of, assuming he gets no ownership
interest in the house.

Have you taken a look at the alimony angle? I haven't looked
at this in years, but there's something rattling around in my
head about a series of payments being treated as alimony
regardless of what the decree might call it.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Mike" <mickey9365[at]hotmail.com> wrote

- quote -

It's been close to 30 years since my divorce. Then
court-ordered payments in addition to child support were
deductible as alimony. That included mortgage payments and
and a family health care policy (not from an employer) for
ex-spouse and children.

There was also a payment method called 'Unallocated
Maintenance" which included both alimony and child support
and was taxable to the recipient.

My first wife took everything including my hearing - only to
learn that she had to pay taxes on it. <g
Dick

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Mike" <mickey9365[at]hotmail.com> wrote

- quote -

Is it alimony?

--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Mike" <mickey9365[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

It doesn't sound like a property division, so it must be
spousal support, and he can deduct it on that basis. Take a
look at the court order to see what it says.

I'd have to check the relevant statutes and regulations, but
I don't think there's another way he can get the deduction.

Stu

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Mike" <mickey9...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Under certain conditions, it can be considered alimony.

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Clients divorced in 2007. The divorce decree states the male
(who I expect will continue to be our client) must make
payments on the house but it is in the x-wife's name and she
lives there, not him.

Is there anyway I havn't thought of to claim the tax and
interest on his Sch A?

mike

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >