- 16 -
actions. The letter has not been countersigned or otherwise
endorsed by Hermine or her attorney. Thus, the April 1 letter
does not memorialize a mutual agreement.
Moreover, Harvey is selective in choosing the terms of the
April 1 letter that he argues evidence an agreement regarding
Hermine’s support. In an effort to show an agreed $530 per week
support obligation, Harvey cites the letter’s language in the
“Matrimonial Support” paragraph which represents that $450 per
week is “available” to Hermine from an account funded by Harvey,
that another $200 per week is paid by him, and that $120 per week
from these sums is paid by Hermine “for a maid”. However, Harvey
ignores language in the same paragraph which represents that he
in addition “pays all charge accounts”; he offers no explanation
why the purported support agreement embodied in the April 1
letter either includes or excludes an obligation by Harvey to pay
charge accounts.
It makes no difference to our conclusion that Harvey
generally (though far from consistently) paid Hermine $530 per
week during the years in issue, which she accepted and presumably
used for her support. Mere acquiescence and receipt of a payment
by the recipient spouse do not transform a unilateral offer of
support into the bilateral written agreement contemplated in
section 71(b)(2)(B). See Harlow v. Commissioner, supra;
Saniewski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-337; Greenfield v.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011