Michael K. Berry - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          children survives the death of the payee spouse does not, in and            
          of itself, cause all or any part of an unallocated support                  
          obligation (such as California family support) to fail to qualify           
          as alimony by reason of section 71(b)(1)(D).                                
                                     Background                                       
               This case is before the Court fully stipulated under Rule              
          122.  The stipulation of facts and, except as provided below, the           
          attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.3               
               Petitioner resided in San Diego, California, when he filed             
          his petition.  During his 1999 taxable (calendar) year and at all           
          relevant times, petitioner accounted for his Federal income tax             
          liability using the cash method of accounting.                              
               Petitioner and his former spouse, Carmen B. De Berry                   
          (Carmen), were married on June 11, 1983.  They had two children:            
          Anthony M. Berry, who was born on January 22, 1985, and Natalie             
          M. Berry, who was born on July 10, 1987.                                    
               On May 5, 1994, Carmen filed a petition for legal separation           
          from petitioner in the San Diego County Superior Court (the                 
          Superior Court), which led to a proceeding for dissolution of               
          their marriage.                                                             
               Petitioner and Carmen eventually agreed to a settlement.               
          Petitioner’s counsel recited the terms of the settlement in open            

               3 Respondent objects to petitioner’s exhibits 5 and 12 on              
          the ground of relevance.  We address these objections in our                
          discussion.                                                                 





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