- 16 -
services to the corporation. Here, the spouse provided past
services to the corporation. Given the particular facts and
circumstances of this case, however, we do not think Barbara’s
prior services afford a basis for distinguishing the results in
the prior cases. We reach this conclusion because of the absence
of any persuasive evidence that Barbara was undercompensated for
her services and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement in
which Barbara waives her right to alimony so long as petitioner
makes the payments to her that are at issue. The contention that
these payments served primarily as disguised alimony is amply
supported in the record.
Respondent argues in the alternative that the payments were
constructive dividends to Barbara, representing a distribution of
earnings to which she was entitled by virtue of her past
equitable interest in petitioner or her stock interest acquired
as a result of the Settlement Agreement. We are satisfied that
Barbara possessed a significant ownership interest in petitioner
when the payments in issue were made. The Settlement Agreement
expressly recited that Barbara “[had] an interest in” petitioner
and that the agreement was intended to be a “property division *
* * as an alternative to the jurisdiction of the Family Court * *
* to equitably divide property pursuant to” State law. As part
of the disposition of Barbara’s “interest” in petitioner, the
Settlement Agreement provided for Walter’s transfer to Barbara of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011