Jerry L. Burton - Page 13

                                                - 13 -                                                   
                        Relations Order is completed, Robert Louis Karem shall                           
                        pay Barbara Wiechman Karem her interest in the pension                           
                        plan immediately when he receives it."                                           
                  Id.  After being assessed a deficiency in his gross income                             
                  based on a lump-sum plan distribution paid to Mrs. Karem,                              
                  Mr. Karem filed a petition in the Tax Court arguing that the                           
                  consent judgment was a QDRO.  The court rejected this                                  
                  argument, noting that "the consent judgment directs that a                             
                  QDRO be drafted * * *; the consent judgment itself is not a                            
                  QDRO."  Id. at 525-526 * * *.                                                          
            The Court of Appeals went on to observe that there was thus no                               
            written order in existence at the time of the distribution that                              
            would satisfy the requirements of section 414(p).  Hawkins v.                                
            Commissioner, supra at 991.                                                                  
                  On brief petitioner argues that he received the plan                                   
            benefits as agent for Mrs. Burton.  However, since the Decree did                            
            not qualify as a QDRO, the possibility raised by this argument                               
            becomes moot.                                                                                
                  As noted above, the parties stipulated that if the Court                               
            holds that the total amount of the retirement accounts                                       
            distribution is taxable to petitioner, then petitioner is also                               
            liable for the additional tax under section 72(t).  Consistent                               
            with this stipulation, we so hold.                                                           
                                                       Decision will be entered                          
                                                 for respondent.                                         

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011