- 11 -
judgments to suggest that the Probate Court was retroactively
changing the temporary order so as to designate that the 1991
temporary order payments constitute at least in part child
support.5
Based on the entire record before us, we find that Ms.
Raymond has failed to satisfy her burden of proving that the 1991
temporary order payments were for child support, and not alimony.
We further find that Mr. Raymond has satisfied his burden of
proving that the 1991 temporary order payments were alimony, and
not for child support. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's
determination under section 71(a) with respect to Ms. Raymond,
and we reject respondent's determination under section 215(a)
with respect to Mr. Raymond.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for petitioner in docket No.
18033-95.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155 in docket No.
24063-95.
5 Ms. Raymond relies on, and Mr. Raymond and respondent discuss
and distinguish, our Memorandum Opinion in Heller v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-463. The Heller cases were recently
remanded in an unpublished disposition of the appeal of those
cases by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Heller
v. Commissioner, 103 F.3d 138 (9th Cir. 1996). In any event, we
find Heller, as well as the other cases on which Ms. Raymond
relies to support her position, to be factually distinguishable
from the present cases.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011