U.S. Code » Title 26 » Subtitle Subtitle A— Income Taxes › Chapter CHAPTER 1— NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES › Subchapter Subchapter B— Computation of Taxable Income › Part PART VII— ADDITIONAL ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS

26 U.S.C. § 215

Repealed. Pub. L. 115–97, title I, § 11051(a), Dec. 22, 2017, 131 Stat. 2089]

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287 (1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287 (1998). · cites it 4× “The starting point for this computation is federal adjusted gross income, which, in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 215 , includes a deduction for alimony payments.”
Lilley Capodanno v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, R. T. Capodanno v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 602 F.2d 64 (3rd Cir. 1979). · cites it 4× “under 26 U.S.C. § 215 (a). This depends whether the arrearage payment, despite its lump sum character, nonetheless is to be treated as “periodic payments” under 26 U.”
Richard E. Hoover v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 102 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “Hoover asserts that the Tax Court erred in holding that $72,200 in payments to Hoover’s ex-wife were not deductible as alimony pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 215 and 71. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the Tax Court’s decision.”
In re Marriage of Stenzel, 908 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). “See 26 U.S.C. § 215 . Joel next contends the district court "awarded far too much in retirement spousal support.”
Richard J. Sydnes v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 647 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “See 26 U.S.C. § 215 . Sydnes filed a petition in the Tax Court, which held that the mortgage payments were part of a property settlement and were therefore not deductible as alimony under 26 U.”
Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). “26 U.S.C.A. § 215 (a)-(b). ¶ 18 Husband is correct in his analysis, that such conditional alimony payments would be treated as child support by the Internal Revenue Service, and that the IRS would disallow any deduction from income for the $750 per month payments.”
Hicks v. Fielman, 421 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “26 U.S.C. § 215 . Couples often plan to make use of these provisions, and we read § 10(a) of the Dissolution Act as being the only means of permitting them to do so.”
Robert W. Boucher & Bernice L. Boucher v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 710 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “Section 215 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 215 , allows a deduction for payments made by a taxpayer to a former spouse if those payments are includible in the income of the recipient under section 71.”
Gates v. Gates, 933 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). “26 U.S.C. § 215 , Alimony, etc., payments, (a) General rule.”
In Re Marriage of Morreale, 813 N.E.2d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “§ 71 (a) (2000)) and deductible by the payer ( 26 U.S.C. § 215 (2000)), Carmen’s payments would not qualify for such tax treatment because the agreement provides that the payments would continue after Mary Ellen’s death.”
Dombrowski v. Noyes-Dombrowski, 869 A.2d 164 (Conn. 2005). “” 8 *135 Furthermore, under 26 U.S.C. § 215 (a), 9 an alimony order that meets this requirement results in taxability to the payee and deductibility to the payor.”
In Re Marriage of Mass, 431 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “See 26 U.S.C. §215 (1976). Sometime in 1977, Carolee informed Alfredo that she could no longer support herself and the four younger children on the $55,000 per year less taxes.”
Show all 90 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.