- 11 -
case. See also to the same effect Karem v. Commissioner, 100
T.C. 521 (1993).
Nowhere is there any indication that the Decree was
presented to the plan administrator, even in draft form, prior to
the distribution of the plan proceeds to petitioner. We have
stated, in Rodoni v. Commissioner, supra at 36, that implicit in
the procedural rules relating to employee benefit plan provisions
(contained in sections 414(p)(6)(B) and 414(p)(7)(B)) is the
requirement that a domestic relations order be presented to the
plan administrator and adjudged "qualified" before any
distribution is made by the plan to the spouse or former spouse.
There is no evidence that this occurred in the case before us.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Decree did not
effectively create or recognize Mrs. Burton's right as an
alternate payee, within the meaning of section 414(p), to receive
petitioner's qualified plan benefits. The directions in the
Decree to turn over the disputed part of the plan proceeds could
only have been effectively addressed to petitioner, who already
had the proceeds, and not to the plan administrator. As a
consequence of this holding, the total amount of the plan
distribution to petitioner is taxable to him in 1991.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011