- 11 -
income, the circuit court intended that Edward should bear the
tax.
We, however, cannot infer from the circuit court's opinion
an intention to designate Edward as the party required to bear
the tax consequences of the payments. The circuit court did not
begin its analysis regarding monthly maintenance payments to
Irene with the intention that Irene receive exactly 40 percent of
Edward's net income. Rather, the court computed Irene's monthly
living expenses, compared the total with Edward's net salary and
dividend income, and concluded that the monthly payment to Irene
of "roughly" 40 percent of Edward's net salary and dividend
income was not unreasonable. The circuit court found that a
payment of $29,000 per month, equal to "roughly 40 percent" of
Edward's net income, would not be unreasonable. The circuit
court's modifying order of December 15, 1989, reduced the monthly
payment to $26,700, which constitutes approximately 37.4 percent
of Edward's net income, an amount which the Court also
necessarily did not find unreasonable. From this, it is clear
that the 40-percent figure mentioned in the circuit court opinion
was not a benchmark from which we can infer that the circuit
court intended that Edward was to bear the tax cost of the
payments.
Because the circuit court did not expressly designate the
court-ordered payments as payments which were not includable in
Irene's income, the requirements of sections 71 and 215 are met.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011