- 8 -
determination, respondent focuses on when the payments at issue
were scheduled to terminate. First, respondent contends that the
payments made by petitioner fail to qualify as alimony because
the family support payments were not set to terminate upon the
death of Ms. Wells, as required by section 71(b)(1)(D). In
addition, respondent, relying on section 71(c)(2), asserts that
the payments were nondeductible child support payments, because
the Modified MTA made the “cessation of the payments contingent
upon events which are associated with petitioner's children.”
Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the payments at
issue were deductible alimony. Petitioner asserts that his
payments satisfied section 71(b)(1)(D) because, under California
law, the obligation for support terminates automatically upon the
death of either party or the remarriage of the recipient.
Moreover, petitioner contends that his payments met the
definition of alimony because the Modified MTA failed to fix any
amount as child support, as required by section 71(c)(2) and
Commissioner v. Lester, 366 U.S. 299 (1961).
Evidentiary Matters
As a preliminary matter, we must make rulings on evidentiary
matters. Respondent moved, pursuant to Rule 50, for the Court to
“exclude all extrinsic evidence, including, but not limited to,
the testimony of petitioner and the testimony of * * * [Mr.
Young] which pertains to the intended character and/or amount of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011