-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