- 8 -
amounts received as retired pay for service in the uniformed
services."
The above referenced language of the Act leads to the
conclusion that although a State court "may treat disposable
retired pay payable to a member" as property of the member and
his spouse for State law purposes, the retired pay is that of the
member. The Act itself does not give the former spouse an
interest in the retired pay. Here, the court ordered payments to
petitioner out of the disposable retired pay of her former
spouse. The decree did not, and could not, make her the
recipient of "retired pay". See 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(c)(1) and
(2) (1994). Petitioner received a division of property in the
form of monthly payments. This was not a taxable event. See
sec. 1041.
As Oregon is not a community property State,4 the decree
here did not have the effect of dividing a preexisting community
ownership of the retired pay of petitioner's former spouse. See
Powell v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 489, 497-499 (1993); Darby v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 51, 67 (1991). Because the retired pay,
out of which petitioner received her payments, is that of
petitioner's former spouse, he remains taxable on his retired
4See, e.g., Swan v. Swan, 720 P.2d 747, 752 (Or. 1986); Wood
v. Wood, 676 P.2d 338, 340 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011