Eighth Circuit: Deductions denied for deferred cash payments of $51 million made to former spouse
A case concerning a taxpayer’s deduction claims in deferred cash payments that he made to his ex-wife.
A case concerning a taxpayer’s deduction claims in deferred cash payments
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today affirmed the opinion of the U.S. Tax Court denying the taxpayer’s deduction claims for $51 million in deferred cash payments that he made to his ex-wife. The appeals court agreed that these were not “spousal maintenance” payments pursuant to the applicable provisions of Minnesota law and that the deductions were properly denied under the now-repealed alimony provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for the taxpayer’s 2012 and 2013 federal income tax years.
The case is: Redleaf v. Commissioner, No. 21-2209 (8th Cir. August 5, 2022). Read the Eighth Circuit’s decision [PDF 66 KB]
This dispute concerns deferred payments that the taxpayer agreed to make to his ex-wife in 2012 and 2013. The taxpayer filed federal income tax returns claiming these were deductible “alimony and separate maintenance payments” whereas the ex-wife filed income tax returns claiming the payments were nontaxable transfers of property incident to divorce.
The IRS issued separate deficiency notices to the taxpayer, explaining he had not shown the payments “qualified as alimony,” and to the ex-wife, explaining payments to her “are includable in taxable income as alimony income.” Both petitioned the U.S. Tax Court for redetermination of their federal tax liabilities. The Tax Court consolidated the cases and granted summary judgment in favor of the ex-wife. Focusing on two of the four criteria that defined deductible alimony payments in section 71(b)(1), the Tax Court concluded (1) that the taxpayer’s obligation to make payments would have continued if the ex-wife had died before the final payment was due; and (2) that Minnesota law designated the payments as not includable in her gross income and not deductible by the taxpayer.
The taxpayer appealed, and today the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 3712, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.