promise to pay in the future--Mollie became liable upon the sale of the VAY assets for the capital gains tax on the difference between what she received upon the sale of the VAY assets and the value of the interest she received at the time of her divorce.


48
This leaves the difficult issue--the nature of Mollie's interest in the Yonadis' marital property under New Jersey law at the time of her divorce.  The Commissioner takes the position, and understands the Tax Court to have taken the position, "that New Jersey law [i.e., N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A:34-23] contemplates a type of co-ownership between spouses during marriage."   Commissioner's Br. at 22.  While I think the issue is a close one, I conclude that Mollie's interest in the marital propertywas sufficiently like an ownership interest to make the relevant segment of the divorce decree a division of jointly held property.


49
The operative provision of the New Jersey statute provides:


50
In all actions where a judgment of divorce or divorce from bed and board is entered the court may make such award or awards to the parties, in addition to alimony and maintenance, to effectuate an equitable distribution of the property which was legally and beneficially acquired by them or either of them during the marriage.


51
N.J.Stat.Ann. Sec. 2A:34-23 (West 1993 Supp.).


52
All three branches of the New Jersey government have characterized this provision of New Jersey's divorce law and the related provisions regarding "equitable distribution" in a manner starkly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's characterization of Delaware divorce law in