- 9 -
for following the direction of the New Jersey court. Petitioner
contends that the New Jersey court required him to make the IRA
distributions to pay his divorce obligations. This same argument
was rejected in Czepiel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-289,
affd. without published opinion 86 AFTR 2d 2000-7304, 2000-1 USTC
par. 50,134 (1st Cir. 2000). As in Czepiel, petitioner was not
required to pay his divorce obligations from his IRA; petitioner
chose to use the IRA because he had no other source of funds to
pay his divorce obligations. Here, the IRA distribution was made
voluntarily by petitioner, with his active participation and
control, and not at the order of any court. See id.
Petitioner also blames the New Jersey court for not issuing
a QDRO. However, the New Jersey court did not order petitioner
to pay his divorce obligations from his IRA; the New Jersey court
merely suggested during a divorce hearing that the IRA was a
potential source to meet petitioner’s obligations. Because the
New Jersey court did not award Ms. Bougas any rights or interest
in petitioner’s IRA, there was no reason for that court to issue
a QDRO. In addition, it does not appear from the record that
petitioner or his attorney ever requested a QDRO.
Petitioner testified that he expressed concerns to his
attorney about taking a distribution from his IRA, but he
ultimately did as his attorney instructed. Petitioner further
testified that had he “been aware there was such a thing as a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011