- 28 -
3. The Child Support Obligation Embedded in Family
Support
Unlike Okerson v. Commissioner, supra (as well as the above-
cited examples in respondent’s temporary regulations), this case
does not involve language in a divorce decree that can be
construed as imposing a substitute payment obligation with
respect to the payments at issue. Rather, the issue in this case
is whether we can infer a substitute payment obligation with
respect to petitioner’s family support payments on the basis of
their undesignated child support component. While spousal
support generally terminates on the death of the payee spouse,
Cal. Fam. Code sec. 4337 (West 2004), a parent’s duty to support
his or her child generally continues until the child’s
emancipation, Cal. Fam. Code secs. 3900, 3901 (West 2004).
Arguably, then, petitioner’s potential liability for child
support payments in the event of Carmen’s death represents a
substitute payment obligation with respect to a corresponding
portion of his family support payments.
We essentially adopted the foregoing analysis in Wells v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-2. In that case, which respondent
urges us to follow, we sustained the Commissioner’s determination
that the taxpayer’s family support payments did not satisfy
section 71(b)(1)(D), relying in part on the following reasoning:
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011