- 7 -
obligation is one for lump sum alimony payable in
installments.
See also Stone v. Stone, supra at 889. That court noted that the
distinction between lump sum and periodic alimony is important
inasmuch as "the obligation to pay periodic alimony terminates at
the death of either party while the obligation to pay lump sum
alimony in installments over a period of time does not." Winokur
v. Winokur, supra at 95 (emphasis added).
In the present case, the Judgment incorporating the jury
verdict required petitioner to pay two installments of $24,000
and $750,000. Thus, the number of payments and the amount of
each payment were specified. Moreover, no other limitations,
conditions, or statements of intent are present in the words of
the documents creating the obligation. Cf. Dillard v. Dillard,
458 S.E.2d 102, 103 (Ga. 1995). Since the payments in 1992 meet
the definition for lump-sum alimony set forth in Winokur v.
Winokur, supra, it follows that they would have remained payable
to Anita's estate in the event of her death. Id. at 95.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the lump-sum
payments in the amount of $971,684 made to Anita and on her
behalf are not alimony within the meaning of section 71. See
Stokes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-456. Consequently, they
are not deductible to petitioner pursuant to section 215(a).
II. Whether Petitioner Is Liable for the Section 6662(a)
Accuracy-Related Penalty
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011