- 11 -
and Mr. Poe remained jointly and severally liable for any
liability owed. This statement accords with the terms of the
couple’s divorce decree. Petitioner first asks us to disregard
and supplant the terms in her divorce decree so as to absolve her
of any personal liability with respect to the underpayment at
issue. Petitioner then argues that because she was “forced” to
withdraw funds, and that “ERISA [otherwise] protects plan money
and requires a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] to
determine the percentage in which to split * * * assets”, ERISA
“preempts the IRS in this manner”, thereby leaving respondent
with no authority to hold her liable with respect to the
underpayment at issue. Petitioner is both incorrect and
misguided with respect to both of the foregoing arguments.
First, it is beyond the purview of this Court to simply
disregard and/or supplant the terms of a divorce decree. We
neither possess jurisdiction to do so, nor are we a court of
equity.4 Second, ERISA is actually part of the Internal Revenue
Code, not separate from it. Therefore, it would be incorrect to
state that part of the Code supplants the Code itself. Finally,
petitioner implores that this Court both “honor the divorce
decree” and, at the same time, disregard those terms to hold
petitioner not liable for one-half of the underpayment.
4 We note, however, that the proper venue for asserting such
a claim would be in the form of a civil action against her ex-
spouse in a court with jurisdiction to hear such a case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007