- 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, eitherPage: 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