-13- for a division of the assets of petitioner and Dr. Ibach ("the parties shall make the following transfers and payments in an effort to equitably distribute their estate"). The only payments at issue, however, are those pursuant to Paragraph 7. As indicated, great weight is given to the language and structure of the decree. See Griffith v. Commissioner, supra. The language of Paragraph 7 is explicit: As settlement of all claims the Wife may have for temporary and permanent alimony, Husband shall pay to Wife the lump sum of $500,000 * * * The parties' intent is that this is lump sum alimony, payable over a period of more than ten (10) years as provided in section 71(c), Internal Revenue Code. Said sum * * * shall be deductible by Husband and taxable to Wife. This factor favors treating the payments as alimony. With regard to the second factor, petitioner surrendered valuable property rights valued at or greater than $500,000, including: The Mandarin Road marital home; the South Ponte Vedra beach house; Dr. Ibach's profit sharing and pension plan; investments; and tax shelters. However, once she relinquished her rights to these properties under Paragraphs 9c, 9d, 10, 11, and 12, it does not appear that she had any further rights in tangible property to exchange for the Paragraph 7 payments. See Schottenstein v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 451, 461 (1980). Thus, this factor favors treating the payments as alimony.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011