- 8 -
agreement indicated that petitioner or his estate might be liable
to make payments to Mrs. Desauguste’s estate after her death.
The Supreme Court of Florida requires very specific language
in order for an agreement to fall into the exception to the
general rule that alimony terminates upon the death of either
spouse. Compare Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla.
1953) and Johnson v. Every, 93 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1957), with
O’Malley v. Pan Am. Bank, supra.
Considering the Florida cases, the Court finds the provision
in petitioner’s June agreement to be ambiguous. This Court
declines to read the provision in petitioner’s June Agreement so
broadly as to constitute a requirement that petitioner continue
to make alimony payments to Mrs. Desauguste’s estate after her
death. See Pettid v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-126.
Therefore, under the Florida rule, the payments to Mrs.
Desauguste would terminate upon petitioner’s death or upon Mrs.
Desauguste’s death, whichever occurs earlier. The requirement of
section 71(b)(1)(D) is satisfied because there is no liability
for petitioner to make any payments of any kind to Mrs.
Desauguste’s estate after her death. The Court concludes that
petitioner is entitled to a deduction for alimony paid to Mrs.
Desauguste.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011