Appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Harold C. Holloway, appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing their complaint for a tax refund in the amount of $8,294.-76. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

In December of 1953 Mr. Holloway and his former wife, Dona Holloway (now Dona Lichtenfield), executed a property settlement agreement. That agreement provided in pertinent part:

In May of 1955 Harold and Dona Holloway were granted a decree of divorce.

By 1964 payments from Mr. Holloway were over $100,000 in arrears under the aforementioned agreement. Dona Lichtenfield’s attorney wrote Mr. Holloway three letters concerning the delinquency. The last was dated September 22, 1964, and stated in substance:

Following this letter the parties held a meeting and reached an understanding modifying their original property settlement agreement. The modification in pertinent part provided:

« -* -X- *

RECITALS

In December of 1964 the parties executed the modified agreement and Mr. Holloway paid the first of three $15,000 installments. This amount was claimed by him as a deduction in his 1964 tax return.

The District Director disallowed the deduction and assessed a deficiency. Appellants paid the assessment and this suit followed.

At the trial Dona Lichtenfield testified that she had not enforced her right to past due payments. She was not aware of what the figure for the arrearages might have been. She was concerned about the resumption of payments. (R. T. 29-30). The defendant argued from her testimony that any past indebtedness from Mr. Holloway to her was “forgiven and canceled” and that the $45,000 figure contained in the modified property settlement agreement represented consideration for the relinquishment of her right to future alimony payments.

The District Court entered judgment for the defendant and stated in its conclusions of law that:

The parties agree that Mr. Holloway’s obligation under ARTICLE TWELFTH of the original property settlement agreement was in the nature of alimony to Dona Lichtenfield, taxable to her and deductible by him. They disagree as to whether the $45,000 obligation of Mr. Holloway by the modified property settlement agreement was in discharge of alimony in arrearage or solely in discharge of any future alimony obligations.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 71 provides in part as follows: “(a) General rule.—

26 U.S.C. § 215 provides:

The foregoing code provisions have been interpreted to mean that if a lump sum payment is made to satisfy arrearages, it retains the characteristics of the original payments for which it is substituted. If the earlier agreement to make periodic payments qualified as a deduction to the taxpayer husband so does the lump sum payment substituted therefor. Holahan v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 451 (1954), aff., 222 F.2d 82 (2nd Cir. 1955); Grant v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 1013 (1952), aff., 209 F.2d 430 (2nd Cir. 1953); Dalton v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 879 (1960).

Similarly, if the lump sum payment is also made to satisfy the taxpayer’s obligation to pay alimony in the future, but the “nub” of the payment is for past arrearages, the entire amount is nevertheless deductible by the taxpayer if it is equal to or less than the amount of arrearages.

This is the position taken by courts that have considered this question, e. g., Grant v. Commissioner, supra, and by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in Rev.Rul. 67-11, IRB 1967-3. In that ruling the Commissioner said:

It is our opinion that the evidence, in this case leaves no doubt that the payment under consideration here was to satisfy past, present and future obligations under the original property settlement agreement. Since the lump sum settlement was substantially less than the amount of the arrearages the taxpayers in this case are entitled to deduct each installment payment in computation of their income tax as a payment of past arrearages of alimony.

We reach this conclusion upon consideration of these facts: (1) The modified agreement expressly mentioned past arrearages when referring to the settlement figure as follows: “3. Except as herein provided, [preceding paragraph contains settlement sum] any and all past indebtedness of Harold C. Holloway to Dona Holloway under the terms of the former Article Twelfth of said Property Settlement Agreement is forgiven and canceled.”; (2) The correspondence between the parties just prior to the formation of the modified agreement concerned only Mr. Holloway’s delinquency in alimony payments; (3) The settlement figure was $45,000 while the amount of arrearages was in excess of $100,000.

Inferences that could have been drawn from Mrs. Lichtenfield’s testimony, to which we earlier referred, are insufficient to overcome that unambiguous documentary evidence. Her testimony relates only to her own motivation in signing the agreement; it tells us nothing about the intention of her former husband in doing so; it does not expressly contradict the language of the instrument. The District Court’s finding that no part of the payments was attributable to alimony arrearages is clearly erroneous. Accordingly we reverse with directions to the District Court to enter judgment for the appellants in the sum of $8,-294.76, with interest from the date of payment thereof.