- 14 -
strong-proof rule.11 See Pettid v. Commissioner, supra.
The marital settlement, in reference to the guaranty
obligation of Mr. Hoffman, consistently refers to payments made
“to the Wife”, and the possibility that “the Wife” would have to
repay amounts to Mr. Hoffman if corporate distributions from SCC
and WLI exceeded guaranteed payments made by Mr. Hoffman under
the guaranty provision. There is no reference to decedent’s
heirs or assigns in connection with decedent or Mr. Hoffman’s
obligations under the guaranty provision. Additionally, the
offset provisions found in the alimony section, and the guaranty
obligation found in the division of marital property section, are
dependent on each other for purposes of determining the amount of
spousal support decedent was required to receive. The alimony
payments, which were intertwined with the guaranty obligation and
excess compensation provisions, terminated on the death of either
decedent or Mr. Hoffman. On the basis of the language in the
guaranty provision and the dependent relationship between that
provision and the alimony section, we find that the terms of the
marital settlement are unclear with respect to whether the
guaranty obligation of Mr. Hoffman survived decedent’s death.
11This Court has been reluctant to apply either rule in
situations involving the interpretation of a divorce settlement
agreement. See Weiner v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 155, 159-160
(1973); Mirsky v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 664, 674-675 (1971);
Gerlach v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 156, 169 (1970); Hopkinson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-154.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011