- 7 -
property interest of petitioner’s former spouse is recognizable
for Federal income tax purposes, the distributions are taxable to
petitioner.
Petitioner acknowledges that section 408(g) requires that
section 408 be applied without regard to community property laws,
but he contends that his former spouse’s community property
interest in his IRA’s arose ab initio and thus may be taken into
account to determine the taxability of the distributions.
Respondent takes no position in this case on the effect of
section 408(g). Instead, respondent contends that petitioner is
the sole taxable distributee because he was the sole recipient of
the distributions.
We disagree with respondent’s assertion that the recipient
of an IRA distribution is automatically the taxable distributee.
We have held that in the context of a distribution from a pension
plan the term “distributee” is not necessarily synonymous with
“recipient”. Estate of Machat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-
154 (citing Darby v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 51, 64-66 (1991)). We
nevertheless find that petitioner was the sole distributee in
this case. The IRA’s were established by petitioner in his name,
and, by reason of section 408(g), his wife is not treated as a
distributee of any portion of the IRA for Federal income tax
purposes despite her community property interest therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011