- 8 -
memorandum and copies of the court decisions discussed in the
memorandum which supported the position that under Georgia law
the payment was lump-sum alimony in the nature of a property
settlement.
On September 22, 1995, petitioner's tax attorney, Stephen C.
Beeler (Beeler), provided Revenue Agent Harper with a second
legal memorandum that reviewed in detail the facts preceding the
$750,000 payment from Human and discussed at length the
conclusion that the payment was lump-sum alimony and not
includable in petitioner's income.
The underlying controversy focused on section 71(a), which
provides: "Gross income includes amounts received as alimony or
separate maintenance payments." A payment satisfies the
definition of alimony only if there is no liability to make any
such payment after the death of the payee spouse. Sec.
71(b)(1)(D).
Respondent argues that the divorce decree specifically
referred to the $750,000 payment as "alimony" and was silent as
to Human's obligation to make payment upon petitioner's death.
Therefore, respondent states, "it was necessary * * * to review
state court opinions on this issue."
The Supreme Court of Georgia addressed this issue in Winokur
v. Winokur, 365 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. 1988). In that case, the Supreme
Court of Georgia stated:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011