- 10 -
the instrument need not specifically refer to sections 71 and 215).
Rather, in our opinion, the divorce or separation instrument
contains a nonalimony designation if the substance of such a
designation is reflected in the instrument.
In the instant case, the language of the agreement is
unambiguous; it clearly makes known that the $20,000 monthly
payments Mr. Goldman made to Ms. Parker constitutes a division of
marital assets and not spousal support. The payments at issue were
made pursuant to paragraph 2.2.9 of the agreement, entitled
"Further Payments for Property Division". That paragraph
specifically states that the $20,000 monthly payments were "In
furtherance of the equitable division of property." Moreover,
paragraph 7 of the agreement provides that "as a result of the
funds as and for property division * * * Plaintiff [Ms. Parker]
expressly waives her right to spousal support from Defendant [Mr.
Goldman]." (Emphasis added.)
The agreement contains a clear, explicit and express direction
that the $20,000 monthly payments are not to be includable in Ms.
Parker's income. See Richardson v. Commissioner, 125 F.3d 551, 556
(7th Cir. 1997), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-554. The agreement mandates
nonalimony treatment of the payments through paragraph 6.5 of the
agreement which provides that the payments in question are to be
subject to the provisions of section 1041 and reported on the
parties' tax returns as a nontaxable event.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011