- 8 -
circumstances. Yoakum v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 128, 140 (1984);
Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 1284. Finally, it is well
settled that State courts by their decisions cannot determine
issues of Federal tax law. See Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U.S.
280 (1946); Neal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-97; Nieto v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-296.
Although paragraph 11 of the divorce decree labeled the
mortgage payments “in the nature of support”, paragraph 8
specifically stated that “Maintenance is denied to each party”.
It thus appears that the mortgage payments are not alimony or
separate maintenance payments. Petitioner admitted that the
intent and purpose of paragraph 11 was to protect Ms. Picou from
becoming personally liable for the mortgages in the event that he
filed for bankruptcy. Clearly, Ms. Picou had no interest in the
Lakewood home after the divorce: she relinquished her interest
in the Lakewood home by quitclaim deed as part of the divorce
action in exchange for the guarantee that petitioner would pay
the mortgages and expeditiously refinance the mortgages in his
name alone to extinguish any continuing personal liability that
she might have on the mortgages. Under these circumstances, the
provision in respect to the mortgage payments appears to be more
in the nature of a property settlement.
In any event, we are not persuaded that the mortgage
payments conferred a benefit on Ms. Picou by virtue of relieving
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011