- 8 -
testimony on which we are unwilling to rely, there is no evidence
in the record to support petitioner's claim as to that $1,000
payment. Consequently, in the event that the Court were to
decide that petitioner is entitled to deduct under section 215(a)
all or a portion of the payments that he made to or on behalf of
Ms. Croteau during 1993, the maximum amount of such a deduction
would be $32,892.
We shall now address whether petitioner has established that
his liability to make the payments at issue terminated upon the
death of Ms. Croteau because resolution of that question will be
dispositive of the issue presented under section 215(a). The
agreement is silent as to whether petitioner was liable to make
the payments at issue after the death of Ms. Croteau. Conse-
quently, we must look to the effect of State law on that ques-
tion. See Hoover v. Commissioner, 102 F.3d 842, 846-847 (6th
Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-183; Sampson v. Commissioner,
81 T.C. 614, 618 (1983), affd. without published opinion 829 F.2d
39 (6th Cir. 1987).
Cal. Civ. Code sec. 4801(b) (West 1983), repealed by 1992
Cal. Stat. 162, sec. 3 (effective Jan. 1, 1994), provides:
(b) Effect of Death or Remarriage. Except as
otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the obliga-
tion of any party under any order or judgment for the
support and maintenance of the other party shall termi-
nate upon the death of either party or the remarriage
of the other party.
If the payments at issue were for the support and maintenance of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011