- 23 -
Q Do you have any idea whether your estate
would have been obligated to continue the $4,000 a
month payments required by that modification had you
died prior to December 31st of 1992?
A I don’t recall specifically having talked
about that subject; no. And I’m not qualified to
speculate.
Q Well, I’m mostly asking whether you find it
in the agreement. I don’t want you to speculate.
A Oh. It’s not in the agreement.
This testimony does not establish or even suggest that his estate
would have been required to continue making payments until
January 31, 1992, if he had died before then.
Petitioners contend that, if respondent rebuts the
presumption, then the payments were neither alimony nor child
support. Petitioners give no reason that the amounts at issue
are not alimony except to restate their belief that the payments
at issue do not terminate when petitioner or James Little dies.
We conclude that the payments at issue are alimony for purposes
of sections 71(a) and 215(a).
Petitioners contend that the payments at issue are not
alimony because petitioner and James Little orally agreed to
modify the stipulation re modification of judgment of dissolution
in October 1990. We disagree.
Petitioners’ contention is inconsistent with their 1990 tax
return on which they reported that petitioner received $28,000 in
alimony. Under petitioners’ contention, petitioner would have
received $44,771 in alimony in 1990.
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