- 8 -
The support decree and modified decree fail to state
expressly that the premiums on the $750,000 policy were for child
support. Although it appears that at least part of the premium
payments was to ensure Niklas’ continued care, under Lester, “the
allocations to child support made * * * [within the divorce
instrument] must be ‘specifically designated’ and not left to
determination by inference or conjecture.” Id. at 306. Pursuant
to Lester, we must conclude that the premium payments are taxable
to Ms. Marten as alimony. To the extent not herein discussed,
we have considered all other arguments made by the parties and
find them to be meritless or moot.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent in docket No.
3401-97.
Decision will be entered
for petitioners in docket No.
16223-97.
3(...continued)
provided in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369,
sec. 422, 99 Stat. 494, 795, the amendments apply to divorce
instruments executed after Dec. 31, 1984; therefore, Lester is
applicable to the present case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011