Kenneth W. and Waldraut N.Hinson - Page 6




                                        - 5 -                                         
          his ex-wife’s death, we agree with respondent that the payments             
          were not alimony.                                                           
               As petitioner’s divorce decree is silent on whether his                
          monthly payments to his ex-wife would survive her death, our                
          analysis is guided by Florida State law.  “Although Federal law             
          controls in determining petitioner’s income tax liability * * *,            
          State law is necessarily implicated in the inquiry inasmuch as              
          the nature of petitioner’s liability for the payment” was based             
          in Florida law.  Berry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-373,                
          affd. 36 Fed. Appx. 400 (10th Cir. 2002); see also, e.g., Sampson           
          v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 614, 618 (1983), affd. without published           
          opinion 829 F.2d 39 (6th Cir. 1987).  In Commissioner v. Estate             
          of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 465 (1967), the Supreme Court addressed             
          the means for determining State law in the context of a Federal             
          tax case and stated that “the State’s highest court is the best             
          authority on its own law.”                                                  
               Florida’s alimony statute specifically permits a trial court           
          to award alimony in the form of periodic payments, lump-sum                 
          payments, or both.  See Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 61.08(1) (West                 
          2006).  “By definition, ‘lump-sum alimony’ is a fixed and certain           
          amount, the right to which is vested in the recipient and which             
          is not therefore subject to increase, reduction, or termination             
          in the event of any contingency, specifically including those of            
          death or remarriage.”  Boyd v. Boyd, 478 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla.              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007