- 16 -
to which she would have been entitled if he had retired.14 Since
use of an early retirement QDRO was not required here, we see no
“clear and unequivocal” congressional intent for Federal law to
supplant State law, see Mansell v. Mansell, supra, and no reason
to avoid taxation of petitioner according to his rights and
obligations under California community property law.
E. Conclusion
We conclude that petitioner may reduce his gross income by
$25,511 for 2000.
Decision will be
entered for petitioner.
14 Cf. Ablamis v. Roper, 937 F.2d 1450, 1459-1460 (9th Cir.
1991) (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L.
93-406, sec. 1056(d), 88 Stat. 829, preempted a predeceasing
nonemployee spouse’s right under California community property
law to leave her interest in her former husband’s pension to a
third person in her will). The U.S. Court of Appeals in Ablamis
did not consider the Federal tax consequences of application of
community property law or hold that community property rights
should be disregarded in applying Federal tax law.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: May 25, 2011