- 20 -
Meagan is petitioner’s child, not his spouse or former spouse;
therefore, even if the supplemental final judgment satisfied the
requirements for a QDRO, petitioner is the distributee and
subject to tax on the $23,192.18. If the supplemental final
judgment is not a valid QDRO, petitioner is the distributee for
purposes of section 402(a) and is subject to tax on the amount
distributed. Hawkins v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 61, 77 (1994);
Karem v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 521, 531 (1993) .
Moreover, in the supplemental final judgment, the State
Court states that a QDRO “shall issue” and “a single QDRO is
hereby Ordered to be entered against E-Systems and the account of
the Former Husband therein”. In order paragraph number 10 of the
supplemental final judgment, the court retains jurisdiction: “to
enter the required QDRO”. We assume that the State Court
intended an additional and separate order to implement its intent
to issue a QDRO. Petitioner has, however, failed to show that
such order was entered or, if entered, met the specifications of
section 414(p). Clearly, petitioner is aware of the importance
of a QDRO in establishing Ms. Hodson as an alternate payee for
purposes of section 402(e)(1)(A), since he has proposed that we
find that the Vanguard distribution “was made via a Qualified
Domestic Relations Order”. Petitioner has not claimed any
difficulty in obtaining a copy of any QDRO entered by the State
Court. We infer that, since no such order is in evidence, either
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011