- 11 -
2. Contentions of the Parties
Dr. Ehrenworth argues that the payments are alimony because
the agreement said the payments were alimony and the New Jersey
courts enforced the agreement. He points out that the agreement
does not say that the payments ceased being alimony when
Mrs. Spector remarried.
Mrs. Spector argues that the postremarriage weekly payments
are not alimony for tax purposes because, under New Jersey law,
courts may not order alimony to be paid after the remarriage of
the recipient of the payments. N.J. Stat. Ann. sec. 2A:34-25.
Respondent argues that we should allocate the payments
between alimony and a property settlement. Dr. Ehrenworth
testified that the marital estate was worth about $2 million,
and that he received about 55 percent of the estate without
considering the weekly payments. Respondent contends that
Dr. Ehrenworth received about $200,000 (the difference between
$1.1 million (55 percent of the marital assets) and $900,000 (45
percent)) more than Mrs. Spector. Respondent points out that, to
equally divide the assets, Dr. Ehrenworth would have had to pay
Mrs. Spector half of the excess he received; i.e., $100,000.
Under the agreement, the weekly payments totaled $499,200
($800/week times 52 weeks times 12 years). Respondent argues
that we should allocate about 20 percent ($100,000/$499,200) of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011