- 10 -
was terminated on March 8, 1991. During that same month
petitioner asked the Fluor Daniel plan administrator to
distribute to him--petitioner--the entire plan balance. In mid-
May of that year the plan administrator acknowledged petitioner's
request and reported to him the amounts to be distributed based
upon a March 31 valuation date. Petitioner received two checks,
both dated May 24, 1991, which terminated his interest in the
plan. It is not clear why the plan administrator agreed to this
termination of petitioner's entire interest in the plan; one
possibility is that the termination of petitioner's interest was
permissible as being related to his separation from service with
Fluor Daniel. In any event, since the plan proceeds were
distributed to petitioner and not to Mrs. Burton, and in advance
of the Decree (which was dated June 11, 1991), it cannot be
argued that the distribution was made by the plan administrator
to an alternate payee in response to the Decree.
Rodoni v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 29 (1995), involved a
similar situation. The domestic relations order in dispute in
that case was not executed until after the taxpayer had received
a lump-sum distribution terminating his interest in a profit
sharing plan. We held that the domestic relations order in that
case could not create or recognize rights that no longer existed
at the time of the order. Id. at 35. The same is true in this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011