- 8 -
was for her children,2 and that the $4,000 payments should be
considered child support despite the lack of identification as
such in the court order. However, only child support payments
fixed by the terms of the instrument itself are excluded from the
definition of alimony or separate maintenance payments; an
inference cannot be made from intent or surrounding circumstances
that payments were for child support. See id.
Because the terms of the temporary order do not fix any
portion of the $4,000 payments as child support, and because the
payments otherwise meet the definitional requirements of section
71(b)(1), we hold that petitioner received $24,000 in alimony
income under sections 61(a)(8) and 71(a).
The next amount at issue in this case is the lump-sum
payment of $10,000 which petitioner received pursuant to the
final settlement agreement.
Petitioner and respondent stipulated the following statement
in the Stipulation of Facts filed in this case:
Petitioner concedes that the $10,000 payment she
received in August, 1995 is includible as taxable
income for the 1995 taxable year.
This concession is not a stipulation of fact--it is a conclusion
of law. As such, it does not bind this Court. See Edward D.
2In addition, Mr. Reed had also filed a motion with the
circuit court which sought to establish “Child Support and Other
Temporary Relief.” However, there is no evidence that this
motion was ever argued and/or decided.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011