- 6 -
presumed to be child support if they are reduced within 6 months
of the date the payor’s child turns 18, 21, or the local age of
majority. See sec. 1.71-1T(c), Q&A-18, Temporary Income Tax
Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 34451, 34457 (Aug. 31, 1984). This
presumption can be overcome if the facts indicate that the time
of the reduction in payments “was determined independently of any
contingencies relating to the children of the payor.” Id.; see
Hill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-179. The time is selected
independently of any contingencies relating to the children if it
is merely a coincidence that the date payments are reduced falls
near a child’s birthday. See Hill v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner contends that the payments at issue are child
support even though the settlement agreement labels them alimony
because she accepted the settlement agreement based on the fact
that the payments would terminate within 6 months of her
daughter’s 18th birthday and based on her understanding that this
fact would cause the payments to be deemed child support for
purposes of Federal income tax treatment. Petitioner does not
dispute that the payments otherwise would constitute alimony.
Respondent concedes that the payments are presumed to be
child support under the temporary regulations because they
terminate within 6 months of Julie’s 18th birthday. Respondent,
however, maintains that the presumption is overcome by the facts
surrounding petitioner’s settlement negotiations with her ex-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011