- 32 -
structured, we have no way of knowing their eventual total
amount.
Fourth, there was no other provision in the settlement that
provided for Faye's support other than minor provisions for the
period during which the marital home was to be sold.
In Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 1285, we stated that a
failure to satisfy one or more of the factors articulated therein
may tend to indicate that the payments in question are more in
the nature of a support allowance. In the instant case, four of
these factors strongly indicate that the payments were in the
nature of support. Most important is the fact that John's
obligation to make payments to Faye is not absolute but, rather,
will terminate upon Faye's remarriage or death. As a result, we
find that the payments in issue were made for Faye’s support in
discharge of John’s legal obligation arising out of the family or
marital relationship.13 Therefore, Faye must include in her
gross income the amounts received, and John and Sarah are
13Our analysis regarding the remaining factors listed in
Beard v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1275, 1284-1285 (1981), also
supports our conclusion. Item (1) (whether the parties intended
the payments to effect a division of assets) favors John’s
position. In addition to John’s testimony on this point, we note
that Faye’s State court pleadings indicate her belief that the
payments should be commensurate with her needs and John’s ability
to pay. As to item (2), we believe that the evidence regarding
whether Faye relinquished any property rights in exchange for the
$2,500 per month payments is inconclusive. As to item (6), the
evidence indicates that Faye’s needs were a consideration in
determining the amount of the payments. (Faye had been married
22 years and had no other means of support.)
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