Petitioner, Rudolf B. S. Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Myers, hereafter called Mrs. Myers, residents of Los Angeles County, California, were husband and wife at all pertinent times prior to July 2, 1945. On or as of June 1, 1945, petitioner and Mrs. Myers made and executed a property settlement agreement, the pertinent provisions of which were as follows:

Thereafter, prior to July 2, 1945, Mrs. Myers commenced a divorce action against petitioner in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for Los Angeles County. In that action, Mrs. Myers obtained an interlocutory decree of divorce on July 2,1945, and a final decree of divorce on October 8, 1946. The decrees approved, and required the parties to comply with, the agreement of June 1,1945. Pursuant thereto, petitioner, in 1946 and 1947, made to Mrs. Myers 24 monthly payments of $250 each — 12 in 1946 and 12 in 1947.

In his income tax returns for 1946 and 1947, petitioner, in computing his net income, deducted from his gross income the 24 payments mentioned above. Respondent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, disallowed the deductions and accordingly determined that there were deficiencies in respect of petitioner’s income taxes for 1946 and 1947. Petitioner petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of his income tax liability for those years. The Tax Court, after a hearing, entered a decision sustaining respondent’s determination. Petitioner seeks review and reversal of that decision.

The question presented is whether, under §§22 and 23 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A, §§ 22, 23, the 24 payments mentioned above were includible in Mrs. Myers’ gross income and were de ductible in computing petitioner’s net income for 1946 and 1947. The pertinent provisions of §§ 22 and 23 are as follows:

The Tax Court held that the 24 payments mentioned above were installment payments discharging a part of an obligation the principal sum of which was specified in the seventh paragraph of the agreement of June 1, 1945, and that therefore they were not includible in Mrs. Myers’ gross income and were not deductible in computing petitioner’s net income for 1945 and 1947.

The Tax Court’s holdings were clearly erroneous. No principal sum was specified in the seventh paragraph of the agreement of June 1, 1945. Therefore the 24 payments mentioned above were not installment payments discharging a part of an obligation the principal sum of which was so specified. They were periodic payments received by Mrs. Myers subsequent to the decree of July 2, 1945. in discharge of an obligation which, because of the marital relationship, was imposed upon and incurred by petitioner under the agreement of June 1, 1945, and the decrees of July 2, 1945, and October 8, 1946. Therefore they were includible in Mrs. Myers’ gross income and were deductible in computing petitioner’s net income for 1946 and 1947.

Decision reversed.

. The decrees were called judgments. . Cf. Baker v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 205 F.2d 369 ; Smith’s Estate v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 208 F.2d 349 ; Landa v. Commissioner, D.C.Cir., 211 F.2d 46 . . Petitioner and respondent agree that the decree of July 2, 1945, was a decree of divorce, within the meaning of § 22 (k). . See cases cited in footnote 2.