- 18 -
that are not allocated between spousal and child support. Based
on the record, we must conclude that Ms. Ambrose did not modify
or "fix" the child support portion of the monthly family support
payments for purposes of section 71(b)(1)(B) and (c)(1).
Petitioner’s (Ms. Ambrose) Alternative Argument
Alternatively, Ms. Ambrose argues that part of the family
support payments are not alimony because, under California law, a
parent's obligation for child support is not terminated upon the
custodial (payee) parent's death. To be successful in her
argument, Ms. Ambrose would have to show that Mr. Ambrose had no
"liability to make such payment for any period after [his] death
* * * and there is no liability to make any payment (in cash or
property) as a substitute for such payments after the death of
* * * [Ms. Ambrose]."10 See sec. 71(b)(1)(D). In that
connection, Ms. Ambrose argues that, because Mr. Ambrose would
10 Sec. 71(b)(1)(D), as amended by the Deficit Reduction Act
of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub. L. 98-369, sec. 422, 98 Stat. 795, required
that the divorce or separation instrument specifically designate
that there was no liability to make any payment after the death
of the payee spouse. That requirement was deleted by the
technical corrections provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1986
(TRA 86), Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 1843(b), 100 Stat. 2853,
retroactive to the effective date of DEFRA, TRA 86 sec. 1881, 100
Stat. 2914. See also Notice 87-9, 1987-1 C.B. 421, 422. Hence,
the divorce or separation instrument need not expressly state
that the payment obligations terminate upon the death of the
payee spouse if, for example, termination would occur by
operation of State law.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011