- 8 -
began and that the only point of contention regarding alimony was
the amount that would be paid.
The record does indicate that Julie’s 18th birthday and
petitioner’s understanding of the Federal tax implications of the
termination date of the alimony payments factored into
petitioner’s decision to consent to the terms of the settlement
agreement. Petitioner’s lead divorce counsel testified that
petitioner was concerned with having the alimony payments
continue until her children were finished with school. He
further testified that he had discussed with petitioner the
presumption arising under the temporary regulations that payments
coinciding with a child’s 18th birthday would be considered to be
child support, and he indicated that petitioner’s willingness to
enter into the settlement agreement was based on her
understanding of this presumption. Neither petitioner nor her
lead divorce counsel, however, indicated that this issue was
discussed with Mr. Shepherd or with his attorney.
Petitioner’s consideration of Julie’s 18th birthday without
any discussion of its significance with Mr. Shepherd or with his
attorney is not enough under the facts of this case for us to
conclude that it was anything more than a coincidence that the
10-year term of the alimony payments ended within 6 months of
September 5, 1999. See Hill v. Commissioner, supra. If Mr.
Shepherd had accepted petitioner’s September 16, 1988, offer in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011