- 14 -
767 F.2d 290, 293 (6th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-357;
Bernstein v. Commissioner, 622 F.2d 442, 445-446 (9th Cir. 1980),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1978-84; Bartsch v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 65,
68-69 (1952), affd. per curiam 203 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1953).
Respondent, relying on the general rule above,8 argues that we
“should not lump the payments together to arrive at a
‘consolidated’ classification”, and that the two paragraphs
should be interpreted as if they have separate termination
provisions.
Respondent misapplies the general rule in the context of
this case. The cases applying the general rule that different
types of payments are not to be treated as a single stream of
payments generally dealt with taxpayers attempting to treat
periodic payments and installment payments as a single stream of
periodic payments. Under previous versions of sections 71 and
215, periodic payments made pursuant to a decree of divorce or
8Other cases applying the general rule include White v.
Commissioner, 770 F.2d 685 (7th Cir. 1985), revg. 82 T.C. 222
(1984); Houston v. Commissioner, 442 F.2d 40 (7th Cir. 1971),
affg. Schwab v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 815 (1969); Fidler v.
Commissioner, 231 F.2d 138 (9th Cir. 1956), affg. as modified 20
T.C. 1081 (1953); Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 208 F.2d 349
(3d Cir. 1953), affg. in part and revg. in part a Memorandum
Opinion of this Court; Martin v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 255
(1979); Hunt v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 561 (1954); Glasgow v.
Commissioner, 21 T.C. 211 (1953); Norton v. Commissioner, 16 T.C.
1216 (1951), affd. 192 F.2d 960 (8th Cir. 1951); Burkle v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-394; Miller v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1981-15; Coker v. United States, 327 F. Supp. 169 (D. Neb.
1971), affd. 456 F.2d 676 (8th Cir. 1972); Tate v. United States,
207 F. Supp. 426 (E.D. Tenn. 1962).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011