Under the Internal Revenue Code, which, like the Bankruptcy Code, also requires federal courts to distinguish alimony payments from property settlements, courts must look to the form of the payment in drawing the distinction. Perhaps because of these considerations, Edwards does not argue that the mortgage payments were intended to serve specifically as child support or alimony. In fact, the Agreement specifically contemplates the possibili- ty that Edwards and the children would move. A provision of the Agreement requires Edwards to inform Richardson of the chil- dren's location should she change address. We are uncertain whether the bankruptcy judge embraced this proposition, but we are certain that it proves too much.
Money is fungible.
The divorcing couple is well aware that the basket of goods to be divided among them is finite. The amount and duration of support or alimony payments may well depend on the division of property the couple settles upon. The statute distinguishes nondischargeable spousal and child support payments from property settlements. S. Rep. No. His obli- gation to pay the second mortgage on the Maryland home is dischargeable.