- 6 -
We disagree. The order of the Superior Court, dated June 30,
1999, directs the equal division of Norman’s IRA. The language
of the court’s order clearly is referring to an interest in
Norman’s IRA. The $60,000 transferred from Norman’s IRA to
petitioner’s IRA reflected a one-half interest in Norman’s IRA,
and the transfer was made pursuant to a divorce or separation
instrument.
Petitioner cites Czepiel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-
289, in support of her position that the transfer of $60,000 from
Norman’s IRA to an IRA established for her benefit constituted a
taxable distribution to Norman. Czepiel is distinguishable.
Therein, the taxpayer was ordered to pay his former spouse
$29,000 “as a further division of marital property” without any
reference to an IRA as the source of the payment, and the
taxpayer withdrew funds from his IRA to pay his former spouse.
We conclude that the distribution out of Norman’s IRA to
petitioner’s IRA was not taxable to Norman, that Norman had no
tax basis therein that was transferred to petitioner,2 and that
the distribution in December of 1999 of the $60,000 held in
1(...continued)
be considered a taxable transfer made by such individual
* * *, and such interest at the time of the transfer is to
be treated as an * * * [IRA] of such spouse, and not of such
individual. Thereafter such * * * [IRA] * * * is to be
treated as maintained for the benefit of such spouse.
2 Petitioner does not argue that Norman had a tax basis in
his IRA prior to transferring an interest therein to petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011