- 19 -
receive postremarriage payments was part of their property
settlement and not alimony for tax purposes.
The fact that the agreement contains no provision for the
support of Mrs. Spector other than the weekly payments favors
treating the payments as alimony. If a former spouse agrees to
pay alimony after his or her spouse remarries, and the agreement
is enforced under State law, then the fact that courts in that
State may not order postremarriage alimony absent such an
agreement does not in itself determine whether the payments are
treated as alimony for Federal income tax purposes. Taylor v.
Campbell, 335 F.2d 841 (5th Cir. 1964); Mass v. Commissioner, 81
T.C. 112 (1983); Dixon v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 709 (1965); Hogg
v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 361 (1949); Hesse v. Commissioner, 7
T.C. 700 (1946); Spector v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-147.
i. How the State Court Characterized the Payments
The Superior Court of New Jersey characterized the payments
as alimony because Mrs. Spector and Dr. Ehrenworth agreed that
the payments were alimony. This favors treating them as alimony.
Mrs. Spector points out that in Ehrenworth v. Ehrenworth,
187 N.J. Super. 342, 349, 345 A.2d 895 (App. Div. 1982), the
Appellate Division of the Superior Court analogized the payments
to installments on a fixed obligation and stated that the fact
that the parties called the payments alimony should not affect
whether the obligation to pay survives Mrs. Spector's remarriage.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011