- 10 -
“upon the entry of a final judgment of a lump sum award a vested
right which is neither terminable upon a spouse’s remarriage or
death nor subject to modification.”3 Cankaris v. Canarkis, supra
at 1201.
Because Mr. Reed’s obligation to make the lump-sum alimony
payment would have continued after petitioner’s death, the lump-
sum payment is not an alimony or separate maintenance payment as
defined in section 71(b)(1). See sec. 71(b)(1)(D). We therefore
hold that, contrary to respondent’s determination and
petitioner’s concession, the $10,000 lump-sum alimony payment
received by petitioner is not includable in her gross income
under section 61(a)(8) or 71(a).4
3This is consistent with the purpose of lump-sum alimony in
Florida, which may be awarded for support or vested property
interests, or to ensure an equitable distribution of property
acquired during the marriage. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra
at 1201. For example, an award of the marital home may be
appropriate as lump-sum alimony. See id. at 1204.
4The final agreement further provides that “The alimony
received by the Wife [petitioner] from the Husband [Mr. Reed]
shall be considered income to the Wife and tax deductible to the
Husband.” We note that this statement has no effect on the
Federal income tax treatment of the $10,000 payment in this case.
It is clear that individuals may expressly exclude payments from
the definition of alimony or separate maintenance payments by
designating the payments as not includable under sec. 71 and not
deductible under sec. 215. See sec. 71(b)(1)(B). However, the
individuals in this case did not attempt to exclude the $10,000
payment from the definition. Rather, they attempted to include
in the definition the payment which otherwise does not meet the
requirements of sec. 71(b)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011