- 20 -
ordered to be paid in the temporary order of June 1993 and again
in the contempt order of December 1993. With the exception of
the attorney‘s fees, Minnesota law provides that the effect of
such orders would have ended with Betty’s death, which would have
terminated her divorce action. It follows that, as to those
payments, petitioner had no liability for any period following
the death of the payee. Therefore, those payments other than the
attorney’s fees constitute alimony under section 71(b)(1)(D).
Respondent’s arguments to the contrary are misplaced.
Initially, respondent correctly acknowledges that, under
Minnesota law, the obligation to pay "maintenance" terminates
with the death of the payee spouse. See Minn. Stat. sec. 518.64,
subd. 3 (West 1990 & Supp. 1999-2000):
Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly
provided in the decree, the obligation to pay future
maintenance is terminated upon the death of either
party or the remarriage of the party receiving
maintenance.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent has accordingly allowed,
as alimony deductions, the regular periodic payments of spousal
support that the State court specifically identified as
"maintenance".
Respondent also points out, however, that when the Minnesota
court ordered the payment of arrearages, it failed to designate
some of them as "maintenance" or to specify that they would end
with Betty’s death. Many of the payments that we have found were
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011