Marilyn J. Baker - Page 8




                                        - 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