- 9 -
maintenance” of Ms. Springer. Although the parties have not
addressed petitioner’s compliance, there is no indication that
petitioner has failed to comply with substantiation requirements,
did not maintain required records, or failed to cooperate with
reasonable requests by respondent for witnesses, information,
documents, meetings, and interviews. However, the parties’
respective positions are based on their contrary interpretations
of the divorce documents and Nebraska law. Our resolution of the
issue presented is ultimately based on our interpretations of the
divorce documents and Nebraska law; therefore, which party bears
the burden of proof is not dispositive to our holding.6
Petitioner claims that the $50,000 payment constitutes
alimony; respondent contends that the payment was in the nature
of a property settlement payment. Generally, property
settlements incident to a divorce are not taxable events and do
not give rise to deductions or recognizable income. Sec. 1041;
Estate of Goldman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 317, 322 (1999),
affd. without published opinion sub nom. Schutter v.
Commissioner, 242 F.3d 390 (10th Cir. 2000). Conversely, amounts
received as alimony or separate maintenance payments are taxable
to the recipient and deductible by the payor in the year paid.
6This Court’s interpretation of State law is generally a
question of law and is reviewed de novo. Hoover v. Commissioner,
102 F.3d 842, 844 (6th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-183.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011