Barbara Ann McMahon - Page 11




                                       - 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