- 6 - issue.4 Because the MDA is silent as to whether Dr. Perkins’s obligation under paragraph 14(f) of the MDA would have survived petitioner’s death, the MDA itself does not resolve explicitly the question of whether the fourth and final requirement of section 71(b)(1) has been satisfied. As a consequence, we must look to Tennessee law in order to properly characterize the payments at issue in this case. Under Tennessee law, two types of alimony are relevant in this case: alimony in futuro and alimony in solido.5 The purpose of alimony in futuro “is to provide financial support to a spouse who cannot be rehabilitated.” Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 471 (Tenn. 2001). Alimony in futuro terminates “automatically and unconditionally upon the death or remarriage of the recipient” or upon the occurrence of a stated contingency, such as a specific termination date. Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 36-5- 4 That is true because (1) those payments were received under an MDA, (2) the MDA did not designate the payments as not includable in gross income under sec. 71 and not allowable as a deduction under sec. 215, and (3) petitioner and Dr. Perkins were not members of the same household when the payments at issue were made. 5 See Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 36-5-101 (2003); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 471 (Tenn. 2001). In 2005, Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 36-5-101 was deleted in its entirety and replaced. The deleted section was amended and recodified in Tenn Code Ann. sec. 36-5-121. In addition to alimony in futuro and alimony in solido, Tennessee law provides for rehabilitative alimony and transitional alimony, neither of which is relevant in this case because they were not provided for in the MDA (transitional alimony was not even introduced into the Tennessee Code until 2003, long after the parties entered into the MDA).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008