- 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