- 15 -
Platt was the owner of an interest in the Baltimore County
pension plan.
In support of their respective positions as to whether Ms.
Platt was the owner of an interest in the Baltimore County
pension plan, the parties rely on the divorce decree provision in
question. That provision requires Mr. Bangs to pay an amount
determined pursuant to a formula stated therein “if, as, and
when” he receives a payment from the Baltimore County pension
plan. Contrary to Mr. Bangs’ argument, the divorce decree
provision in question does not provide that Ms. Platt is the
owner of an interest in that plan.23 Nor has that provision been
construed to do so. In fact, the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland concluded that the divorce decree provision in question
granted nothing more than a monetary award to Ms. Platt. See
Bangs v. Bangs, 475 A.2d 1214, 1223 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984).
In Bangs v. Bangs, supra, Mr. Bangs appealed from the
divorce decree involved in these cases. In that appeal, Mr.
Bangs did not argue, as he does here, that the divorce decree
provision in question provided that Ms. Platt was the owner of an
23As discussed supra note 19, Mr. Bangs’ reliance on Pfister
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-198, is misplaced because that
case involved a Federal military retirement program that was
subject to Federal statutes that do not apply in the instant
cases. Mr. Bangs’ reliance on Pfister also is misplaced because,
unlike the divorce decree involved in the instant cases, the
divorce decree involved in Pfister provided that the taxpayer in
that case was to “be owner of, and receive, one-half of husband’s
disposable retired or retainer pay”. Id.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008