- 30 -
property settlement. Beard v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1275, 1283
(1981); Bishop v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 720, 724-725 (1971).
This issue is a factual one and requires an examination of all
the surrounding facts and circumstances. Wright v. Commissioner,
62 T.C. 377, 389 (1974), affd. 543 F.2d 593 (7th Cir. 1976).
Factors which indicate that the payments are in the nature
of a property settlement are: (1) The parties in their agreement
(or the court in its decree) intended the payments to effect a
division of their assets; (2) the recipient surrendered valuable
property rights in exchange for the payments; (3) the payments
are fixed in amount and not subject to contingencies, such as the
remarriage or death of the recipient; (4) the payments are
secured; (5) the amount of the payments plus the other property
awarded to the recipient equals approximately one-half of the
property accumulated by the parties during marriage; (6) the
needs of the recipient were not taken into consideration in
determining the amount of the payments; and (7) a separate
provision for support was provided elsewhere in the decree or
agreement. Benedict v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 573, 577-578
(1984); Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 1284-1285.
In the instant case, most of the above factors indicate that
the payments were in the nature of support rather than a property
settlement. First, the payments are subject to two
contingencies. The Stipulation and Final Judgment provided that
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011