- 2 -
portion of the funds she received as alimony on her
2002 income tax return but did not report any of the
funds as pension income.
R rejected P-H’s amended return, disallowed part
of the alimony deduction taken on the original return,
and determined a deficiency in his income tax for 2002.
R also determined a deficiency in P-W's income tax for
2002 for failing to report the entire distribution from
the plan as income.
P-W moves for an award of litigation costs.
Held: The domestic relations court order did not
give P-W the right to receive the distribution directly
from the Plan; thus, the court order was not a QDRO
under sec. 414(p)(1), I.R.C. Consequently, the
distribution was not made under a QDRO, so the
exception in sec. 402(e)(1), I.R.C., does not apply,
and P-H must include the distribution in his gross
income.
Held, further, P-W's original calculation that
$75,318 of the distribution was allocable to alimony
was correct, so that amount is income to P-W and is
deductible by P-H.
Held, further, P-W may not recover litigation
costs from P-H under sec. 7430, I.R.C.
Mark E. Slaughter, for petitioner Jeanne E. Amarasinghe.
Disamodha C. Amarasinghe and Narlie Amarasinghe, pro sese.
Veena Luthra, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOEKE, Judge: By separate notices of deficiency, respondent
determined a deficiency of $12,085 in petitioners Disamodha and
Narlie Amarasinghe’s (Dr. Amarasinghe and his spouse) joint
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008