- 10 -
the payments in question undiminished after the remarriage of the
payee spouse. See, e.g., Danz v. Danz, supra at 165 (no abuse of
discretion in trial court’s refusal to enforce husband’s
obligation to pay combined alimony and child support beyond
remarriage of wife). We have found no contrary authority on our
own, and, as stated, we have not been favored with a brief by
Ronald Murphy. For purposes of this case, we shall assume that
the obligation to make the marital payments could have survived
the remarriage or death of Diane Murphy. Moreover, there is
insufficient evidence for us to find that the marital payments
would not have survived the death of Diane Murphy before the
majority of the children in her custody. Thus, Ronald Murphy has
failed to prove a necessary element of section 71(b)(1), viz, the
subparagraph (D) requirement of cessation on the death of the
payee spouse, and, consequently, he has failed to prove that the
marital payments are alimony within the meaning of section 71(b).
Finally, respondent has determined section 6662(a) penalties
against Ronald Murphy for both 1990 and 1991. Section 6662(a)
provides for the imposition of a penalty on any portion of an
underpayment that is attributable to, among other causes,
(1) negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, or (2) any
substantial understatement of income tax. In the petition,
Ronald Murphy assigned error to respondent’s determinations of
section 6662 penalties but did not aver any facts in support of
that assignment. We assume that Ronald Murphy relies on our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011