- 13 -
2(...continued)
in which payments which would otherwise qualify as
alimony or separate maintenance payments will be
presumed to be reduced at a time clearly associated
with the happening of a contingency relating to a child
of the payor. In all other situations, reductions in
payments will not be treated as clearly associated with
the happening of a contingency relating to a child of
the payor.
The first situation referred to above is where
the payments are to be reduced not more than 6 months
before or after the date the child is to attain the
age of 18, 21, or local age of majority. The second
situation is where the payments are to be reduced on
two or more occasions which occur not more than one
year before or after a different child of the payor
spouse attains a certain age between the ages of 18
and 24, inclusive. The certain age referred to in
the preceding sentence must be the same for each such
child, but need not be a whole number of years.
The presumption in the two situations described
above that payments are to be reduced at a time clearly
associated with the happening of a contingency relating
to a child of the payor may be rebutted (either by the
Service or by taxpayers) by showing that the time at
which the payments are to be reduced was determined
independently of any contingencies relating to the
children of the payor. The presumption in the first
situation will be rebutted conclusively if the
reduction is a complete cessation of alimony or
separate maintenance payments during the sixth post-
separation year (described in A-21) or upon the
expiration of a 72-month period. The presumption may
also be rebutted in other circumstances, for example,
by showing that alimony payments are to be made for a
period customarily provided in the local jurisdiction,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011