- 6 -
husband’s estate); Succession of McVay v. McVay, 476 So. 2d 1070,
1073-1074 (La. Ct. App. 1985) (IRA to be accounted for in
division of community property at divorce).
Our analysis of this issue begins with section 408(d)(1).
Pursuant to that section, “any amount paid or distributed out of
an individual retirement plan shall be included in gross income
by the payee or distributee, as the case may be, in the manner
provided under section 72.” Neither the Code nor applicable
regulations define the terms “distributee” or “payee” as used in
section 408(d)(1). In construing a parallel provision governing
the taxation of distributions from pension plans under section
402,4 we have held that a distributee is generally “the
participant or beneficiary who, under the plan, is entitled to
receive the distribution”. Darby v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 51, 58
(1991); see also Estate of Machat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-154. Under this definition, petitioner would be the
distributee and the payee because he was the IRA participant and
received the distributions according to the terms of his IRA’s.
Similarly, petitioner’s former spouse would not be a distributee
because she was not the IRA participant and did not receive the
funds as a designated beneficiary. Thus, unless the community
4Sec. 402(b)(2) provides that “The amount actually
distributed or made available to any distributee by * * * [an
employee’s trust] shall be taxable to the distributee, in the
taxable year in which so distributed or made available, under
section 72”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011