- 9 -
Ms. Platt had stipulated that amended section 71 applies in these
cases, the Court is not bound by stipulations of law. See, e.g.,
Thoburn v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 132, 144 n.12 (1990).
The Circuit Court for Baltimore County issued the divorce
decree on March 2, 1983. The record does not establish that that
court modified that decree after that date. On the record before
us, we hold that section 71 before its amendment by DEFRA, and
not amended section 71, applies in determining whether the
monthly payments at issue constitute alimony.
In his reply brief, Mr. Bangs states: “We would agree that
if the pre-Tax Reform Act of 1984 version of I.R.C. 71 [section
71 before its amendment by DEFRA] is applicable, the Disputed
Payments [monthly payments at issue] do not constitute alimony.”
Mr. Bangs thus concedes that if we were to hold that section 71
before its amendment by DEFRA applies, which we have, the monthly
payments at issue do not constitute alimony under that section.
Based on Mr. Bangs’ concession, we hold that the monthly payments
at issue do not constitute alimony under section 71 before its
amendment by DEFRA and are not deductible under section 215(a)
before its amendment by DEFRA.15
We turn now to Mr. Bangs’ argument that Ms. Platt was the
owner of an interest in the Baltimore County pension plan since
the divorce decree ordered him to pay her “if, as, and when he
15See supra note 13.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008