Jerry L. Burton - Page 11

                                                - 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