- 8 -
self-serving statements as our only evidence. The facts
presented before us leave us no other choice but to find that the
receipt of the plan’s total net distribution is a lump sum
distribution from Martin’s plan.4
Petitioner’s final argument is that he received the total
distribution of the plan as the personal representative of
Martin’s estate and not in the capacity of the sole beneficiary.
We find no merit in petitioner’s argument. Under New Jersey law,
a pension plan, like an insurance policy, is a nontestamentary
asset, and therefore generally not subject to administration
under a probate estate. See Czoch v. Freeman, 721 A.2d 1019,
1024 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999). We find that petitioner
received the total plan amount in his individual capacity as the
beneficiary and not the personal representative of Martin’s
estate.
4 The pertinent part of sec. 402(d)(4)(A) states:
(A) Lump sum distribution. For purposes of this
section and section 403, the term “lump sum
distribution” means the distribution or payment within
1 taxable year of the recipient of the balance to the
credit of an employee which becomes payable to the
recipient-
(i) on account of the employee’s death,
** * * * * * *
from a trust which forms a part of a plan described in
section 401(a) and which is exempt from tax under
section 501 or from a plan described in section 403(a).
* * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011