- 7 -
Although petitioner did not allege or contend that the
$17,900 was paid pursuant to a QDRO, petitioner in any event does
not qualify for the section 72(t)(2)(C) exception to the
additional tax. Although the divorce decree is a domestic
relations order, it is not a QDRO. Rather than recognizing an
alternate payee with respect to petitioner’s qualified plan, the
decree divested Ms. Simpson of any rights to such property and
deemed that property to be petitioner’s sole and separate
property. Sec. 414(p)(1)(A). Because no alternate payee was
named in the divorce decree, the decree was not a QDRO.
Moreover, the distribution of funds from petitioner’s
qualified plan was not made to an alternate payee as required by
section 72(t)(2)(C). By contrast, the funds were disbursed by
the plan administrator directly to petitioner. The Court rejects
petitioner’s argument that, because he used funds received in the
plan distribution to pay Ms. Simpson, she should be responsible
for a proportionate share of the additional tax. Petitioner’s
argument ignores the definitional elements of alternate payee in
section 414(p)(8), and he points to no legal authority to support
his position. As previously noted, Ms. Simpson was not an
alternate payee. Bougas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-194.
Petitioner does not fall within the section 72(t)(2)(C) exception
to the section 72(t) additional tax on an early distribution from
a qualified retirement plan, nor does he contend that he
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011