- 19 -
Estate of Gary v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-38; Canakaris v.
Canakaris, supra at 1201.
Respondent argues that the guaranteed payments were in the
form of lump-sum alimony; thus, they survived decedent’s death
and are includable in the gross estate. We disagree. The
marital settlement was entered into by decedent and Mr. Hoffman
after lengthy negotiations. The terms of the marital settlement
were freely and voluntarily entered into by the parties with the
full benefit of advice from counsel and other experts. In the
“Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage”, the presiding judge
dissolved the marriage between decedent and Mr. Hoffman and
approved, ratified, and confirmed the marital settlement. The
presiding judge did not interpret the marital settlement or
impose additional conditions. The term “lump-sum alimony” is not
used in the marital settlement or in the final judgment to
describe the guaranty obligation. The payments described in the
alimony section pertaining to the initial base monthly alimony
amount were described as “permanent alimony”. As we discussed
earlier, the guaranty obligation was linked to these payments by
an offset provision. After reviewing the evidence in the record,
we find no indication that the guaranty obligation was intended
by either the parties or the presiding judge to constitute “lump-
sum alimony” under Florida law. Because the form of the
guaranteed payments was not specifically defined by the marital
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011