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 II— ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME

26 U.S.C. § 71

Repealed. Pub. L. 115–97, title I, § 11051(b)(1)(B), Dec. 22, 2017, 131 Stat. 2089]

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 211 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So. 2d 329 (Miss. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So. 2d 329 (Miss. 2000). · cites it 7× “WHETHER ACCORDING TO 26 U.S.C.A. § 71 (C)(2), THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE BY APPELLANT ARE CONSIDERED CHILD SUPPORT INSTEAD OF ALIMONY II.”
Richard E. Hoover v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 102 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 1996). · cites it 5× “Hoover disallowing $36,000 of the claimed deduction for 1988 and the entire $36,200 deduction for 1989.”
In Re Marriage of Morreale, 813 N.E.2d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 5× “” Paragraph six states that the payments are deductible by Carmen and taxable to Mary Ellen, indicating that the parties wanted the tax treatment available for maintenance payments.”
Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172 (Wyo. 1990). · cites it 10× “§ 71 (b)(1)(B) by which discretion relating to designation whether alimony and property settlement is provided. See Comment, Tax Planning in Divorce: Both Spouses Benefit From the Tax Reform Act of 1984, 21 Willamette L.”
Elizabeth H. Bardwell v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 318 F.2d 786 (10th Cir. 1963). · cites it 7× “This petition for review of the decision of the Tax Court of the United States presents a question of the taxability to the petitioner under 26 U.S.C. § 71 (a) (l), 1 of certain payments made to her by her husband subsequent to their divorce.”
In Re Marriage of Mass, 431 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 10× “(See 26 U.S.C. §71 (1976).) For the same years, Alfredo declared the payments as an itemized deduction.”
Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009). · cites it 2× “See 26 U.S.C. §§ 71 (a), 163(h)(3)(A), 215(a) (2008).”
Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “26 U.S.C.A. § 71 . ¶ 17 The Internal Revenue Code also provides that: (a) General rule.”
Malin v. Mininberg, 837 A.2d 178 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Moreover, she contends that the court “is empowered to designate alimony as not includable [sic] in gross income for tax purposes,” pursuant to Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 71 . Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.”
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 5× “Ill The remaining issue is whether the arrearage payment in the lump sum of $19,-880 is includable in Lilley’s income pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 71 (a)(3) 10 and, therefore, deductible by R.”
Dorothy Olster v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 751 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1985). · cites it 4× “The government contends that paragraphs 2 and 3 must be read together, and when read together, support the interpretation that past alimony payments were also consideration for a receipt of the mortgages and the promissory note.”
Rockefeller v. Rockefeller, 980 S.W.2d 255 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 4× “See 26 U.S.C. §§ 71 and 251. Conversely, child-support payments are not deductible by the payor and are not taxable income to the payee.”
Show all 211 citing cases →
— 26 U.S.C. § 71(b) — 2 cases
Gallagher v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 180 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
Brock v. Comm'r, 566 F.2d 947 (5th Cir. 1978).
— 26 U.S.C. § 71(c) — 1 case
William M. Joslin, Sr. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 424 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1970).
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.