Angela C. Morris - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
               Section 408(d) generally sets forth the tax treatment of               
          distributions from IRA’s as follows:                                        
               SEC. 408(d) Tax Treatment of Distributions.-–                          
                    (1) In general.–-Except as otherwise provided in this             
               subsection, any amount paid or distributed out of an                   
               individual retirement plan shall be included in gross income           
               by the payee or distributee, as the case may be, in the                
               manner provided under section 72.                                      
               We have held that the distributee or payee of a                        
          distribution from an IRA is “the participant or beneficiary who,            
          under the plan, is entitled to receive the distribution.”  Bunney           
          v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 259, 262 (2000); see also Darby v.                
          Commissioner, 97 T.C. 51, 58 (1991).  In noncommunity property              
          jurisdictions, since Mr. Morris was entitled to and did receive             
          the distributions, those distributions would be taxable to him.             
          Sec. 408(d)(1).  The question then is whether the Louisiana                 
          community property regime dictates a different result.  Section             
          408(g) provides that “This section shall be applied without                 
          regard to any community property laws.”  We held in Bunney that             
          by operation of section 408(g), in a community property                     
          jurisdiction the spouse of a distributee, who did not receive the           
          distribution from the IRA, is not treated as a distributee                  
          despite whatever his or her community property interest in the              
          IRA may have been.  Bunney v. Commissioner, supra at 263.                   










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011