- 12 -
tion to pay family support had petitioner died before the divorce
judgment. The fact that the unallocated support order is modi-
fiable and temporary tells us, at the least, that a court might
have reduced Dr. Gonzales' payments rather than terminate them
altogether. Indeed, there are no counterindications. Accord-
ingly, we hold that the requirement of section 71(b)(1)(D) has
not been met and, therefore, all payments received by petitioner
under the temporary order are not alimony.10
We have considered the parties' other arguments and find
them unpersuasive.
To reflect concessions and our conclusion herein,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
10We need not and do not characterize the disputed payments
other than to hold that they were not alimony.
This holding comports with our conclusions reached in prior
opinions addressing the characterization of "family support".
See, e.g., Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-273 (holding
that, in Colorado, family support paid under a temporary order is
not alimony); Wells v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-2 (holding
that, in California, family support payments are not alimony);
Murphy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-258 (holding that, in
California, family support payments are not alimony).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011