- 18 -
Petitioners contend that the stipulation re modification of
judgment of dissolution is ambiguous. Petitioners point out
that the stipulation re modification of judgment of dissolution
contains a formula which, if child support is resumed later,
reduces spousal support by 1.55 times the amount of any child
support. This provision does not lead us to conclude that
payments made before child support resumes are child support.
The stipulation re modification of judgment of dissolution
clearly states that the payments at issue are spousal support and
that child support ended on August 1, 1990.
Petitioners contend that respondent must show that
petitioner and James Little chose the termination date based on a
specific event in Christina's or James Little's life other than
her 18th birthday. We disagree. Section 1.71-1T(c), Q&A-18,
Temporary Income Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 34457 (Aug. 31, 1984),
does not require that payments terminate based on a specific
event to overcome the presumption that payments which terminate
within 6 months of a child's 18th birthday are child support. It
provides that a party may overcome the presumption by showing
that the date the payments are to be reduced was chosen
independently of any contingencies relating to the children.
Respondent has done so by showing that it is merely a coincidence
that January 31, 1992, was within 6 months of Christina's 18th
birthday.
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