- 20 -
payments are in "full and complete settlement toward the
claims in the Annulment Lawsuit and the Bartling Lawsuit."
Petitioner is not attempting to alter the unambiguous
terms of the Annulment Agreement and, thus, avoid the tax
consequences that flow from this Agreement. Rather, by
introducing the joint exhibits into evidence, petitioner
seeks to produce evidence contrary to respondent's position
that the subject payments are "in settlement of a claim for
damages" (i.e., the Bartling lawsuit) and to prove that the
parties to the Annulment Agreement intended the "periodic
support payments" to qualify as "alimony or separate
maintenance." Accordingly, we overrule respondent's
objection to the joint exhibits.
Respondent also objects to paragraph 6 of the
stipulation of facts and paragraph 53 of the supplement to
stipulation of facts, relating to respondent's treatment of
the payments received by Ms. Wagner. Paragraph 6 of the
stipulation of facts states in pertinent part as follows:
6. Pettid (i.e. Petitioner) asserts that
for the same three tax years [1993, 1994, and
1995], the Commissioner * * * determined that the
same $4,000.00 monthly payments that Pettid made
to Wagner were alimony includable in her gross
income. * * *
Paragraph 53 of the supplement to stipulation of facts
provides in pertinent part as follows:
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011