- 11 -
Reading the agreement from a reasonable, commonsense
perspective, we find that it contains a nonalimony designation
within the purview of subparagraph (B) of section 71(b)(1).1
Consequently, we hold that the $20,000 monthly payments Mr. Goldman
made to Ms. Parker in 1992, 1993, and 1994 constitute a division of
marital property, rather than alimony, and hence are not deductible
by Mr. Goldman for those years.
We have considered the remaining arguments made by the
parties, and to the extent not discussed above, find them to be
without merit.
Issue 2. Section 6662(a) Accuracy-Related Penalties
The other issue for decision concerns the applicability of the
section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties. Respondent contends
that Mr. Goldman substantially understated his tax for the years in
issue and is accordingly liable for the penalties. Petitioner
disagrees.
1 In Hawkins v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 982 (10th Cir.
1996), the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where an
appeal of this case would lie, reversed our decision in 102 T.C.
61 (1994), regarding the specificity requirements of sec.
414(p)(2). The Court of Appeals held that an agreement awarding
petitioner wife $1 million from her husband's pension plan was a
qualified domestic relations order which shifted the income tax
liability to the wife. Although the facts and operative Code
section involved in this case differ from those involved in
Hawkins, our reading of the specificity requirements of sec.
71(b)(1)(B) is analogous insofar as we find that the agreement
made an effective designation without referring expressly to sec.
71 or 215.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011