Jerry L. Burton - Page 12

                                                - 12 -                                                   
                  Having so held, we do not reach the question of whether the                            
            Decree clearly specifies facts as required by section 414(p)(2),                             
            or alters the amount, form, etc., of the benefits, as prohibited                             
            by section 414(p)(3).                                                                        
                  In Hawkins v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 1996),                              
            the Court of Appeals disagreed with our holding in Hawkins v.                                
            Commissioner, 102 T.C. 61 (1994), that the domestic relations                                
            order in that case did not create or recognize the existence of                              
            an alternate payee's right, or assign to an alternate payee the                              
            right, to receive employee plan benefits, and did not satisfy the                            
            clearly specified facts requirement of section 414(p)(2).                                    
            However, in that case the disputed domestic relations order                                  
            preceded the plan distribution, which makes this case                                        
            distinguishable from Hawkins in a way that is fatal to                                       
            petitioner's position.  The Court of Appeals in Hawkins v.                                   
            Commissioner, 86 F.3d at 990-991, itself recognized a similar                                
            disabling distinction under the facts of Karem v. Commissioner,                              
            100 T.C. 521, 523 (1993):                                                                    
                  In Karem [v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 521 (1993)], a consent                             
                  judgment was entered by a state divorce court in order to                              
                  partition the community property of Mr. and Mrs. Karem.  100                           
                  T.C. at 523.  The consent judgment provided that Mrs. Karem                            
                  was to receive an interest in her ex-husband's pension plan,                           
                  but it stated the following condition:                                                 
                        "She shall receive that interest pursuant to a                                   
                        qualified Domestic Relations Order to be prepared by                             
                        Robert Louis Karem.  Until the Qualified Domestic                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011