Jeanne E. Amarasinghe - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          them by the use of particular language, the intentions of the               
          parties are not controlling.”  Id. at 70 (citing Commissioner v.            
          Lester, 366 U.S. 299, 304-305 (1961)).  The Court compared the              
          QDRO provisions to the child support language in section 71(c) at           
          issue in Lester, and concluded that “a QDRO should be ‘clear and            
          specific’ and not ‘left to determination by inference or                    
          conjecture.’” Id. at 73 (quoting Commissioner v. Lester, supra at           
          306).  With these considerations in mind, the Court held that the           
          DRO was not a QDRO, in part because on its face it did not                  
          create, recognize, or assign rights in the pension plan to Mrs.             
          Hawkins.  Id. at 74.  The Court concluded that identifying the              
          pension plan as the source of the $1 million payable to Mrs.                
          Hawkins was not a sufficient indication that she was an alternate           
          payee.  Id.  The Court noted that there were no clear signs that            
          a QDRO was intended, such as references to Mrs. Hawkins as the              
          alternate payee or as the person responsible for the taxes on the           
          distribution.  Id.                                                          
               Mr. Hawkins appealed the Court’s decision to the Court of              
          Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which reversed this Court’s                  
          ruling.  Hawkins v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 1996),             
          revg. 102 T.C. 61 (1994).  The Court of Appeals held that the use           
          of the phrase “$1 million ‘from’ * * * [the pension plan]”                  
          sufficiently created or recognized the contractual right in Mrs.            
          Hawkins required by section 414(p)(1)(A)(i).  Id. at 990.  The              







Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008