- 8 -
ex-husband intended by that arrangement anything other than that
he would act as a collection agent on her behalf. We do not read
the agreement as allocating the pension in full to the ex-husband
and, on account thereof, other community property of an equal
value to petitioner. Petitioner has cited no case interpreting
language similar to that in the agreement in the manner advocated
by petitioner. We find that, pursuant to the agreement and
incident to the divorce, petitioner received an interest in the
pension as her separate property.
2. Tax Consequences to Petitioner on Receipt of Her
Separate Property Interest in the Pension
Section 1041 deals with transfers of property between
spouses or incident to divorce. In general, it provides that
(1) no gain or loss shall be recognized to the transferor on such
a transfer and (2) the transferee succeeds to the transferor’s
basis. It is arguable that section 1041 has no application to an
equal-in-value division of the property of a marital community,
since there is no transfer of property but only a partition of
the community. See Commissioner v. Mills, 183 F.2d 32, 34
(9th Cir. 1950), affg. 12 T.C. 468 (1949); Walz v. Commissioner,
32 B.T.A. 718, 720 (1935).
In any event, section 1041 is inapplicable to any transfer
in 1980 incident to either the agreement or the final judgment,
since any such transfer would be pursuant to an instrument that
predates the effective date of section 1041. See sec. 421(d) of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011