- 14 -
A question arises as to whether the definition of the term
“distributee” in Darby v. Commissioner, supra, applies in the
instant cases, where the qualified pension plan in question is a
governmental plan that is not subject to the spendthrift provi-
sions of section 401(a)(13).22 We need not resolve that ques-
tion. That is because, regardless of whether in the context of a
governmental plan, such as the qualified pension plan involved in
the instant cases, the term “distributee” in section 402(a) means
the participant or the beneficiary under such a plan, as the
Court held in Darby, or the owner of such a plan, as the parties
apparently argue here, on the record before us, we find that for
purposes of section 402(a) Mr. Bangs, and not Ms. Platt, was the
distributee under the Baltimore County pension plan.
The parties do not dispute (1) that during the year at issue
Mr. Bangs, and not Ms. Platt, was a participant under the Balti-
more County pension plan and (2) that during that year Ms. Platt
was not a beneficiary of an interest in that pension plan. We
thus consider only the parties’ disagreement over whether Ms.
22In Powell v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 489 (1993), the Court
set forth an exception to the general definition in Darby v.
Commissioner, supra, of the term “distributee” in sec. 402(a).
The Court held in Powell that that definition did not apply in a
situation governed by community property laws where the former
spouse’s “rights were acquired by her directly at the outset and
did not represent a transfer to her of rights which had previ-
ously accrued to [her husband]”. Id. at 497-498. Accordingly,
the Court further held in Powell that the former spouse was a
“distributee” under sec. 402(a) who was “taxable on her share of
the pension benefits” in question. Id. at 499.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008