- 10 - implicitly designated such payments as part of their property settlement and not alimony. She suggests that the designation of the monthly payments under paragraph "1" of the Agreement as alimony combined with the lack of any designation for the automobile-related payments under subparagraph "g" of paragraph "3" implies that such payments were designated as not being alimony. Section 71(b)(1)(B), however, only treats a payment as other than alimony if the governing divorce or separation instrument designates the payment as a "payment which is not includible in gross income under * * * [section 71] and not allowable as a deduction under section 215." The regulations do not provide for and we do not interpret this statutory language to allow designations by implication as Alexandra contends. Richardson v. Commissioner, 125 F.3d 551, 557 (7th Cir. 1997), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-554; see sec. 1.71-1T(b), Q&A8, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 34455 (Aug. 31, 1984). We hold that the amounts in issue constitute alimony or separate maintenance payments which must be included in Alexandra's gross income and are deductible by Burley and Mary. To reflect the foregoing, Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011