-12-
This Court looks to the following factors which indicate that
payments are in the nature of a property settlement rather than a
support allowance: (1) The parties in their agreement (or the court
in its decree) intended the payments to effect a division of their
assets; (2) the recipient surrendered valuable property rights in
exchange for the payments; (3) the payments are fixed in amount and
not subject to contingencies, such as the remarriage or death of
the recipient; (4) the payments are secured; (5) the amount of the
payments plus the other property awarded to the recipient equals
approximately one-half of the property accumulated by the parties
during marriage; (6) the needs of the recipient were not taken into
consideration in determining the amount of the payments; and (7) a
separate provision for support was provided elsewhere in the decree
or agreement. Benedict v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 573, 577-578
(1984); Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 1284-1285. Failure to
satisfy one or more of the factors articulated herein may tend to
indicate that the payments in question are more in the nature of a
support allowance. See Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 1285.
Applying the above factors, we conclude that Dr. Ibach's
payments to petitioner were in the nature of alimony. Our analysis
of the factors in reaching our conclusion is as follows.
With regard to the first factor, we believe the agreement was
intended to be a comprehensive and final settlement of all issues
regarding custody, support, visitation, alimony, and property
settlement between petitioner and Dr. Ibach. Paragraph 9 provides
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011