- 5 -
The first difficulty in this area of law is that different
states define “alimony” differently--in some states it means what
it does in Federal tax law, but in others it can mean something
quite different. See, e.g., Hoover v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-183 (1995), (Ohio using “alimony” to mean both property
settlements and periodic support payments), affd. 102 F.3d 842
(6th Cir. 1996). And the dichotomy between property settlements
and alimony that tax law draws--grows steadily murkier as
different types of post-divorce payments proliferate. Tennessee
divorce law, for example, used to classify all alimony as either
in solido (roughly equivalent to property settlements) or in
futuro (roughly equivalent to section 71 alimony). Bryan v.
Leach, 85 S.W.3d 136, 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Then, in 1984,
the Tennessee legislature created “rehabilitative alimony,”
explaining in the new statute:
It is the intent of the general assembly
that a spouse who is economically
disadvantaged, relative to the other spouse,
be rehabilitated whenever possible by the
granting of an order for payment of
rehabilitative, temporary support and
maintenance. * * *
Acts 1984, ch. 818, secs. 1-3, codified in Tenn. Code Ann. sec.
36-5-101(d)(1) (2001 & Supp. 2004); see also Cranford v.
Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48, 50-51 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), revd. on
other grounds at Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001);
Gotten v. Gotten, 748 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011