- 16 -
that contains the following exchange between Carmen and her
counsel:
Q And you understand that under this agreement,
that the support of $4,030 payable by husband to you
will be taxable to you?
A Yes.
Petitioner’s exhibit 12 is a copy of Carmen’s 1997 Federal income
tax return, on which she reported $42,055 of “Other income”,
described as “Family Support received”.
Respondent objects to petitioner’s exhibits 5 and 12 on the
ground of relevance. In essence, respondent argues that
petitioner’s and Carmen’s belief or understanding that the
payments would be taxable to Carmen, and Carmen’s inclusion of
the payments in the income reported on her 1997 tax return, have
no bearing on the issue of petitioner’s liability to continue
making those payments in the event of Carmen’s death. For the
reasons discussed below, we shall sustain respondent’s objection.
b. Extrinsic Evidence in General
Before we address respondent’s relevance objection, we
consider the larger issue of whether resort to extrinsic evidence
of intent is appropriate in this case. In construing divorce
documents under section 71(b)(1)(D) to determine the payor
spouse’s postdeath liability, we are generally prohibited from
considering extrinsic evidence if the operative documents speak
unambiguously to the matter. Okerson v. Commissioner, supra at
264. If the documents are silent or ambiguous, we may, to the
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011