- 7 -
were made pursuant to a lump-sum settlement agreement wherein the
liability of the payor spouse to make such payments would extend
to the payee’s estate had the payee spouse died before such
payments were due. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with
respondent.
Check No. 1964, in the amount of $13,579.91, and check No.
2101, in the amount of $693, were paid by petitioners pursuant to
“Article VI, Lump Sum Settlement of Property Rights, section A”,
of the marital settlement agreement between Mr. Zakrzewski and
Ms. Zakrzewski. At trial, petitioners and, in particular,
petitioner wife, fervently argued that this Court should hold the
payments petitioners made to Ms. Zakrzewski in 2002 to be alimony
since a settlement agreement entered into between petitioner and
Ms. Zakrzewski on March 13, 2003, “dismissed with prejudice the
marital settlement agreement of 1995, [and also] it invalidates
the clause that any payments would be binding on the heirs.” We
note, however, that the payments at issue were made in taxable
year 2002. The payments were made before the 2003 settlement
agreement was reached. There is nothing in the 2003 settlement
agreement or, more importantly, the law, which permits us to
apply the terms of the 2003 settlement agreement retroactively to
characterize these payments petitioners made to Ms. Zakrzewski in
2002. Gordon v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 525, 531 (1978).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007