- 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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011