- 8 -
Indeed, the Superior Court’s order expressly states that the
parties and the court intend that it constitute a qualified
domestic relations order within the meaning of the Internal
Revenue Code; moreover, all of the requirements of section
414(p)(1) through (3) appear to be satisfied. See generally
Brotman v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 141, 147, 149-150 (1995);
Burton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-20.
In sum, the $16,909 distribution that was received by
petitioner in 2001 from the Retirement Plan was received by her
as an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 402(e)(1)(A), petitioner is
treated as the distributee of the distribution and, pursuant to
section 402(a), the distribution is includable in her income.
We recognize that from a property perspective, petitioner
might not have taken anything from her 32-year marriage other
than a 50-percent interest in Mr. Kelley’s retirement plan.
Unfortunately for petitioner, this fact does not serve to
overcome the clear mandate of section 402 defining the taxability
of distributions from an employees’ trust.
Finally, we recognize that on several occasions in the past,
respondent’s Service Centers apparently issued “no change”
letters to petitioner after inquiring into the status of her
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011