- 13 -
1990 and $8,217 for 1991. Ms. Burkes argues that the temporary
support order, which was in effect until the beginning of
November 1990, did not require payment of the auto loan. Mr.
Burkes' concession is likely based on his evaluation of Ms.
Burkes' argument that the final divorce decree did not become
effective until the latter part of 1990.
Ms. Burkes argues that these payments were a division of
property as opposed to being support alimony, and, accordingly,
those payments would not meet the section 71(b)(1)(D) test that
the payments cease at Ms. Burkes' death. For the same reasons we
set forth in our discussion of the attorney's fees question, the
payments on the automobile loan constitute support alimony and
not a division of property. Therefore, Mr. Burkes is entitled to
deduct from income, and Ms. Burkes is required to include in
income $648.75 for 1990 and $8,217 for 1991, attributable to Mr.
Burkes' payments on the automobile loan.
Respondent also disallowed the $8,217 payment on the
automobile loan claimed by Mr. Burkes for 1989. Mr. Burkes
conceded, on brief, that the $8,217 amount is not allowable as an
alimony deduction for 1989.
6(...continued)
this case, we accept $648.75 as used by the parties.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011