- 7 -
Petitioner filed a separate return for 2000, claiming single
rates, and petitioner and Mr. Nodurft resided in separate States.
Petitioner and Mr. Nodurft signed the separation agreement, and
petitioner received the payment from Mr. Nodurft pursuant to the
separation agreement. The separation agreement required Mr.
Nodurft to pay petitioner $1,505 per month “until a final decree
of divorce or dissolution is entered as between the parties.”
According to its own terms, the separation agreement was entered
into by petitioner and Mr. Nodurft to effect a permanent
separation. The separation agreement explicitly provides terms
of support that are sufficient for it to be considered a written
separation agreement under section 71. See Bogard v.
Commissioner, supra at 101-102; Benham v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner’s contention that the separation agreement is not
legally enforceable does not change that result. See Richardson
v. Commissioner, supra; Benham v. Commissioner, supra.
We have stated that a separation instrument that provides a
“clear, explicit and express direction” that a payment made
pursuant to that separation instrument is not includable in
income under section 71 and not allowable as a deduction under
section 215 will qualify the payment for exclusion from the
recipient’s income. See Richardson v. Commissioner, supra;
Estate of Goldman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 317, 323 (1999),
affd. without published opinion sub nom. Schutter v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011