Robert L. Stahl - Page 19




                                       - 19 -                                         
          402(a) provides, with detail not here relevant, that, unless                
          otherwise provided in section 402, distributions by any                     
          employees’ trust are taxable to the distributee.  We have held              
          that the distributee of a distribution from an employees’ trust             
          ordinarily is the participant or beneficiary (in or of the plan             
          under which the employees’ trust was established) who is entitled           
          to receive the distribution.  See Darby v. Commissioner, 97 T.C.            
          51, 58 (1991) (“In particular, the mere fact that the                       
          distribution is made by the plan administrator to A rather than             
          to B does not make A the distributee.”).  Nevertheless, section             
          402(e)(1)(A) provides:                                                      
               (A)  Alternate Payee Treated as Distributee.--For                      
               purposes of subsection (a) and section 72, an alternate                
               payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the                        
               participant shall be treated as the distributee of any                 
               distribution or payment made to the alternate payee                    
               under a qualified domestic relations order (as defined                 
               in section 414(p)).                                                    
          Section 414(p) contains detailed specifications for a QDRO.  We             
          need not set forth those specifications.                                    
               Pursuant to section 402(e)(1)(A), petitioner can escape                
          taxation on the $23,192.18 distribution only if it were made to             
          petitioner’s spouse or former spouse.  The supplemental final               
          judgment provided that Meagan was to receive $22,500 from one of            
          petitioner’s two pension plans, and, in fact, she did                       
          subsequently receive a distribution from one of petitioner’s                
          pension plans pursuant to that supplemental final judgment.                 






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011