- 10 -
unambiguous written separation agreement specifically and
unequivocally fixes periodic payments as child support. Estate
of Craft v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 249, 263-264 (1977), affd. 608
F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1979); Grummer v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 674,
680 (1966). Conversely, the introduction of extrinsic evidence
is permitted in cases where documents contain inconsistencies
and/or ambiguities.
The documents before us are riddled with inconsistency and
ambiguity. For example, paragraph 14C. lists several
contingencies relating to “the child”. This singular reference
is perplexing as petitioner and Ms. Wells have two children from
their marriage, and the document does not reveal whether these
contingencies related to one or both of the children.
The fact that petitioner and Ms. Wells modified the MTA adds
complexity to our analysis. The Modified MTA states that the MTA
is modified “to the extent and only to the extent as herein
detailed.” In modifying the first sentence of paragraph 14C.,
the Modified MTA changes the monthly amount of family support and
specifically eliminates the portion of the sentence relating to
the sale of the house. The Modified MTA, however, is silent as
to the contingencies relating to “the child”, and there appears
to be uncertainty as to whether the contingencies were intended
to have survived the modification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011