<DaveMschr[at]aol.com> wrote in message
news:15932eea-bf59-4fdf-8648-32ec7011dae2[at]s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

They do. "Production of income" does not mean "production of deductions."

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Feb 13, 5:22 pm, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...[at]bellsouth.netwrote:
- quote -

Damn. Figured I'd ask, since there was a void order in there, which
usually isn't the
case.

I'm guessing the rule is, if it increases gross income (rather than
minimizing
adjustments), it's more likely to be deductible; if it's simply
minimizing adjustments to
gross income, it isn't deductible?

Why don't they say that? :-b

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<DaveMschr[at]aol.com> wrote

<<<Snip what's mostly not important> >
- quote -




As much as you may think otherwise, this is not for the
"protection/collection of income". Your gross wages would remain the same.
Your net would be less due to the wage garnishment for alimony.

No deduction.




--
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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Question regarding legal fees / protection of income / alimony
proceedings.

My ex-spouse sued me for divorce in Kansas in March 2007. Part of the
proceedings involved an
ex parte order for spousal support, and when I refused to pay, an
income withholding order.

In July 2007, I was successful in getting the spousal support order
(and subsequent income
withholding order) dismissed on the grounds that the state of Kansas
lacked personal jurisdiction
over me. (I did not meet the minimum contacts test for assertion of
personal jurisdiction. As
such, the orders were void on its face, but proceedings were necessary
to make this determination.)
Due to the timing of the income withholding order and the dismissal
of same, no income was
actually withheld. After dismissing the void orders, the Kansas
courts had no further effect on
divorce proceedings.

The courts in my home state (North Carolina) were the ones that
eventually issued the divorce
decree and governed all aspects of same, including the property
settlement and my ex-spouse's
waiver of alimony claims.

Are monies spent towards legal fees in defending/quashing the void
orders deductible, as
miscellaneous deductions for protection/collection of income, since
quashing the orders
was necessary to ensure that I was able to collect all taxable income
that was due me
from my employer?

The IRS publications (specifically Pub. 529) is not fully clear on the
subject. I realize that if
the spousal support proceedings in Kansas had been found valid, it
would not be deductible, since the
claim would be arising from a personal relationship. Likewise, the
vast majority of my legal
expenses in North Carolina would not be deductible.

But since the claim in Kansas was never legitimate at all (and
ultimately had no legal effect), does it matter how the claim arose?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >