- 7 - agreement, Rockwell v. Rockwell, 681 A.2d 1017 (Del. 1996); Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276 (Del. 1983). Respondent has not argued, and nothing in the record indicates, that the separation agreement was invalid in any respect. Second, we find that the separation agreement conforms to the substance of Form 8332. The agreement provided that petitioner was unconditionally entitled to the dependency exemption for Brandi, and it was signed and dated by Ms. Rogers, Brandi’s custodial parent. The language of the agreement, which referred to the separate returns of petitioner and Ms. Rogers as well as to joint returns to be filed no later than 1991, indicates that the allocation of the dependency exemption deductions was to apply to all returns filed after the divorce had been finalized. Thus, although the agreement did not explicitly state each and every taxable year to which it was to apply, we find that it unambiguously stated that it was to apply to all future years, which is permissible pursuant to section 1.152-4T(a) Q&A-4, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 34459 (Aug. 31, 1984). We note that, in the notice of deficiency, respondent did not challenge the language of the agreement but questioned only whether the agreement had been incorporated into a divorce decree: The notice stated that the “separation agreement did contain a provision entitling you to claim Brandi as a dependent exemption on your tax return with no conditionsPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011