- 8 -
income, the payments are considered alimony for Federal income
tax purposes. Richardson v. Commissioner, supra at 557; Jaffe v.
Commissioner, supra.
In Estate of Goldman, the divorce instrument classified the
payments in question as a division of property, but unlike the
instruments in the instant case, the divorce instrument in Estate
of Goldman also stated:
6.5 The parties intend and agree that all transfers of
property as provided for herein are subject to the
provisions of Section 1041, * * *, and that they shall
be accounted for and reported on his or her respective
individual income tax returns in such a manner so that
no gain or loss shall be recognized as a result of the
division and transfer of property as provided for
herein. Each party shall file his or her Federal and
State tax returns, and report his or her income and
losses thereon, consistent with the foregoing intent of
reporting the division and transfers of property as a
non-taxable event.
Estate of Goldman v. Commissioner, supra at 320-321. We found
that 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." Id. at 323. This Court stated that this was
"a clear, explicit and express direction" that the monthly
payments were not to be includable in the recipient's income.
Id. We held that based on a reading of the agreement from a
reasonable, commonsense perspective, the agreement contained a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011