- 15 -
C. Whether Respondent Rebutted the Presumption Under Section
1.71-1T(c), Q&A-18, Temporary Income Tax Regs., That the
Payments Are Child Support
Petitioners contend that there was no evidence introduced at
trial to rebut the presumption.3 We disagree.
Section 1.71-1T(c), Q&A-18, Temporary Income Tax Regs.,
supra, provides that the taxpayer or the Commissioner may rebut
the presumption “by showing that the time at which the payments
are to be reduced was determined independently of any
contingencies relating to the children of the payor.” Respondent
has done so by showing that the parties chose January 31, 1992,
as part of eliminating a financial impediment to petitioner’s
remarriage and that it is purely coincidental that January 31,
1992, is within 6 months of Christina's 18th birthday.
Petitioner testified that the modification gave her a
financial incentive to remarry. The stipulation re modification
of judgment of dissolution does not refer to Christina's 18th
birthday, and, by its terms, it ends her child support. The
parties apparently did not discuss Christina's 18th birthday when
they negotiated the stipulation re modification of judgment of
dissolution. James Little testified as follows:
3 Petitioners also contend that respondent determined that
the payments at issue here are alimony because respondent allowed
James Little to deduct the amounts in issue in a year that is
closed by the statute of limitations.
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