- 8 -
Accordingly, it is the marital settlement agreement of 1995 that
we look to as the sole, operative document at issue in this case.
First, we note that the payments at issue were not included
in “Article V, Maintenance,” which expressly provided that the
payments were allowed as an alimony deduction in accordance with
section 71(b)(1)(A) and (B). Rather, these payments were made
pursuant to a provision of the marital settlement agreement
segregated from those payments that were clearly indicated as
alimony. Second, “Article XIV, General Provisions, section C,
provides that “All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be
binding upon the respective heirs, next-of-kin, executors,
assigns and administrators hereto.” This conflicts directly with
section 71(b)(1)(D), and therefore, leads us to the holding that
these payments are not deductible by petitioners as alimony or
separate maintenance.
Petitioners next argue that the terms of the marital
settlement agreement should not be construed in accordance with
Illinois law, and that we should look only to the parties’
intent, which would undoubtedly then lead us to the holding that
these payments were, in fact, alimony or separate maintenance
because petitioners intended them to be for that purpose. As
evidence of this intent, petitioners testified that had they
known that they would not be entitled to deduct the payments from
their gross income, they would not have made them.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007