- 11 -
See Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. v. Commissioner, 565
F.2d 1388, 1390 (9th Cir. 1977), remanding T.C. Memo. 1973-223;
Baxter v. Commissioner, 433 F.2d 757, 759 (9th Cir. 1970), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1969-87; Meredith Corp. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 406,
438 (1994).
Based on our examination of the entire record before us, we
find (1)(a) that petitioner has failed to persuade us that the
payments at issue were for the support and maintenance of Ms.
Croteau within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code sec. 4801(b) and
(b) that, consequently, Cal. Civ. Code sec. 4801(b), which
requires the obligation of a party under an order or judgment for
the support and maintenance of the other party to terminate upon
the death of either party, does not apply to those payments and
(2) that petitioner has failed to establish that the payments at
issue satisfy the definitional requirement for alimony or sepa-
rate maintenance payments that is set forth in section
71(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, petitioner has failed to show that
6(...continued)
App. 1st 1991). Under California contract law, extrinsic evi-
dence concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding the
execution of a property settlement agreement is not admissible to
vary or alter that agreement if the terms of the contract are
susceptible of only one reasonable interpretation. See Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code sec. 1856 (West 1983); In re Marriage of Iberti, 64
Cal. Rptr. 2d 766, 768-769 (Cal. App. 2d 1997); see also Cal.
Civ. Code sec. 1638 (West 1985). We conclude that the terms of
the agreement are susceptible to only one reasonable interpreta-
tion. Consequently, we shall disregard the extrinsic evidence
offered by petitioner concerning the alleged terms of the agree-
ment, which conflict with the actual terms of the agreement.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011