- 13 -
other property awarded to the recipient equals approximately one-
half of the property accumulated by the parties during marriage;
(d) the payments are fixed in amount and not subject to
contingencies, such as the death or remarriage of the recipient;
(e) the payments are secured; (f) the needs of the recipient were
taken into consideration in determining the amount of the
payments; (g) the payments are related to the obligor's income;
(h) there is a separate provision for support elsewhere in the
agreements; and (i) the State court characterized the payments as
alimony or a property settlement. Riley v. Commissioner, 649
F.2d 768, 774 (10th Cir. 1981), affg. T.C. Memo. 1979-237; Beard
v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1275, 1284-1285 (1981); Widmer v.
Commissioner, 75 T.C. 405, 409 (1980).
a. Whether Mrs. Spector Surrendered Valuable Property
Rights
Mrs. Spector argues that she surrendered valuable property
rights in Dr. Ehrenworth's pension, Dr. Ehrenworth's medical
practice, the couple's art collection, the medical building, the
Phoenix Corp., and the home Dr. Ehrenworth built in Watchung,
New Jersey, in exchange for the weekly payments. We disagree
that she surrendered those rights in exchange for the weekly
payments.
Both spouses surrendered rights to marital assets when they
settled the property issues. They used the weekly payments both
to achieve an acceptable division of their marital assets and to
provide support for Mrs. Spector. However, the record does not
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011