- 11 -
statement, even if petitioners had done so, it is doubtful that
such statement would support their contention because the
division of Mr. Walton’s military retired pay is based on the
QDRO, rather than on statements purportedly made at trial.
Nevertheless, the crux of petitioners’ contention is that
petitioner’s payments are subject to double taxation.14 In this
regard, petitioners contend that they are being asked to pay
income tax on the amount petitioner actually receives, which
amount is calculated based on Mr. Walton’s net military retired
pay after income taxes are withheld.15 However, based on the
record, we are unable to determine whether double taxation would
result because petitioners did not introduce any evidence
demonstrating the gross amount of Mr. Walton’s military retired
pay and the various taxes that were withheld therefrom.
Admittedly, Congress recognized that subtracting tax
withholdings from the computation of disposable retired pay
created unfairness. H. Rept. 101-665, at 279-280 (1990). As a
result, Congress amended the definition of “disposable retired
pay” such that income taxes withheld are not taken into account
14 Petitioners’ contention that petitioner’s payments are
subject to double taxation assumes a fact not shown by the
record.
15 Petitioner also argues that she is not receiving the
correct amount of money. We note that this Court is not the
proper forum to address petitioner’s complaint and that such
complaint should be addressed to the court that has jurisdiction
over the QDRO and/or to DFAS.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011