Margaret Carol Burns - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
          petitioner from Mr. Burns satisfy the requirements of alimony set           
          out in section 71(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C).  Therefore, the                   
          payments' status as alimony depends upon whether they satisfy               
          section 71(b)(1)(D); i.e., whether Mr. Burns's liability to make            
          the payments would have terminated in the event of petitioner's             
               Petitioner argues that the $16,800 received from Mr. Burns             
          in 2002 was not taxable alimony but was part of the property                
          settlement she and Mr. Burns agreed to regarding the marital                
          home.  Petitioner argues that the MSA, as drafted by the                    
          attorney, did not conform to the terms to which she and Mr. Burns           
          agreed.  Specifically, petitioner avers that she and Mr. Burns              
          agreed that the $1,400 monthly payments she received from Mr.               
          Burns until the marital home was sold were to be taxable to Mr.             
               The gravamen of respondent's argument is that the payments             
          made to petitioner pursuant to the MSA were alimony because all             
          the requirements of section 71(b)(1)(A)-(D) are satisfied.  Even            
          if Mr. Burns's $1,400 monthly payments to petitioner were                   
          intended as part of a property settlement and were to be taxable            
          to Mr. Burns, respondent argues, they are alimony for Federal               
          income tax purposes as long as the requirements of section                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011