- 22 -
until Mrs. Spector remarries, and instead refers to the entire
payment term as the "12 year alimony period" shows that
Dr. Ehrenworth and Mrs. Spector did not agree that payments would
cease to be alimony when Mrs. Spector remarried.
This factor favors treating the payments as alimony.
4. Conclusion
Judge Freedman believed that Dr. Ehrenworth and Mrs. Spector
intended for the payments to be in part for alimony and in part a
property settlement. We agree.
As discussed in paragraph A-2, respondent argues that the
payments should be allocated 80 percent to alimony and 20 percent
to a property settlement. We agree. See Bishop v. Commissioner,
55 T.C. 720, 726 (1971) (Court found a factual basis for
allocating part of payment to alimony and part to property
settlement). Upon consideration of the divorce judgment, the
intent of Dr. Ehrenworth and Mrs. Spector when the judgment was
entered, Mrs. Spector's many references to the payments as
alimony, Dr. Ehrenworth's concessions that he received 55 percent
of the marital estate and that the marital estate was worth $2
million, and the factors listed above, we conclude that the
weekly payments were 80 percent alimony and 20 percent property
settlement.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011