- 8 - Spouses’ Protection Act, Pub. L. 97-252, 96 Stat. 730 (1982).4 However, there is nothing in this statute that would have afforded petitioner an ownership interest in the pension. Rather, the statute merely provides that State courts are free to treat the pension as separately held or jointly held property, as the relevant State law provides. Pfister v. Commissioner, supra. Furthermore, the authority found in the statute for the payment of a portion of a retiree’s benefits to a spouse as the result of a property settlement does not require a spouse to own an interest in the pension before receiving such payments. Petitioner did not have an ownership interest in the military pension from which she received the benefits in issue. Consequently, the benefits are properly includable in the gross income of Mr. Newell, who initially earned the pension and who alone had an ownership interest in the pension after the divorce. Sec. 61(a)(11); Eatinger v. Commissioner, supra. Respondent argues alternatively that the benefits are includable in petitioner’s gross income as alimony pursuant to section 71.5 4The relevant provision is codified, as amended, at 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408 (2000). 5Because the divorce decree in this case was entered prior to 1985, we apply the provisions of sec. 71 which were applicable before the changes made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub. L. 98-369, sec. 422(e), 98 Stat. 798. We note that the amount of the spousal support payments required by the (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011