- 5 -
memorandum, petitioner apparently believes that the payments in
question were alimony because they represent payments for
arrearages in alimony or, alternatively, even if they represent
payments for attorney's fees, they are still in the nature of
spousal support and therefore deductible alimony.
Petitioner emphasizes that the order which garnished his
wages to pay the attorney's fees was titled “Earnings Withholding
Order For Support” and, therefore, contends that the payments
made to the attorneys were for support and are properly
considered alimony. It is well settled that the labels which the
parties or a State court attach to payments are not conclusive.
Yoakum v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 128, 140 (1984). Rather, the
determination rests upon all of the surrounding facts and
circumstances. Id. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. Rule
142(a). Petitioner offered no evidence showing that the
attorney's fee obligation would end at his former wife's death.
We found petitioner's statements that the payments were for
arrearages in alimony and/or spousal support not to be credible.
Respondent's witness, Maria's divorce attorney, was, on the other
hand, credible in her explanation that the payments in issue were
for attorney's fees and costs awarded by the State court that
would not have terminated upon Maria's death. There is
sufficient evidence in the record, based on all of the facts and
circumstances, that the payments in issue were for attorney's
fees, and the liability to make such payments would not have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011