- 9 -
nonalimony designation within the purview of subparagraph (B) of
section 71(b)(1). Id. at 323-324.
In this case, the provisions in the Judgment of Divorce and
the Agreement do not specifically address the Federal income tax
consequences of the payments on the parties. Cf. Estate of
Goldman v. Commissioner, supra. Yet petitioner asks that we find
that the classification of a payment as a "property settlement"
is a clear, explicit, and express designation that the payments
are to be nontaxable to petitioner and nondeductible to Mr. Baker
under Federal income tax laws.
In making our determination, we note that in divorce
instruments parties may characterize payments in different ways,
such as alimony, periodic alimony, alimony in gross, property
settlement, division of property, etc. The meaning of these
terms may vary from State to State. Moreover, the effect that
such classifications may have in each State may be dependent upon
the intent of the parties or other factual circumstances. As we
noted above, Congress specifically revised section 71 in order to
eliminate the subjective inquiries into the nature of payments.
The label of "property settlement", with no further
clarification, does not clearly inform us that the parties
considered the Federal income tax consequences of the payments
under sections 71, 215, and/or 1041. To find for petitioner, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011