5
appear that the facts in this case fit the mandatory provisions
of section 402(a)(9), calling for the taxation of the
distribution here to petitioner as the alternate payee under a
QDRO. Nevertheless, petitioner points to the language of the
QDRO itself, which provides that the tax on the amount
distributed here was to be the liability of Mr. Willadsen. We
think this is nothing more than an attempt by the parties to the
divorce to change by their private contract (albeit sanctified by
a State court QDRO) the impact of Federal income tax in a
situation which is clearly provided for by the Code. State law
may indeed determine the rights to and ownership of property, as
the divorce decree, settlement agreement and QDRO provide in this
case, Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), but the Internal
Revenue Code will determine how those property rights, once
established, shall be taxed. Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78
(1940). Where a distribution is made from a qualified plan to a
participant's former spouse pursuant to a QDRO, as here, such
former spouse is to be considered the "alternate payee" and taxed
on such distribution as the distributee; the subjective intention
of the former husband and wife in trying to agree to shift the
burden of taxation resulting from this transaction is not
effective or relevant. Hawkins v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 982
(10th Cir. 1996), revg. on other grounds 102 T.C. 61 (1994).
Petitioner may have a cause of action against her former spouse
under the separation agreement and the QDRO, but such cause of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011