- 22 -
The Circuit Court for Baltimore County issued the divorce
decree involved in the instant cases on March 2, 1983. On the
record before us, we hold that section 414(p)(11) does not apply
to that divorce decree. On that record, we further hold that the
divorce decree involved in the instant cases does not qualify
under section 414(p) as a QDRO and that Ms. Platt is not an
alternate payee for purposes of section 402(a). Accordingly, we
further hold that Ms. Platt is not to be treated as a distributee
under the Baltimore County pension plan of the payments to which
she was entitled pursuant to the divorce decree provision in
question. See sec. 402(e)(1)(A).
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that the monthly payments at issue are not deductible or
excludable from Mr. Bangs’ income and are not includible in Ms.
Platt’s income for the taxable year 2002.33
We have considered all of the parties’ respective conten-
tions and arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find
them to be without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.
33On brief, respondent does not advance any arguments
in support of the respective determinations under sec. 6662(a) in
the notice for Mr. Bangs’ taxable year 2002 and in the notice for
Ms. Platt’s taxable year 2002. We conclude that respondent
has abandoned those determinations. Assuming arguendo that we
had not concluded that respondent abandoned those respective
determinations, on the record before us, we find that neither
petitioners in the case at docket No. 4467-06 nor petitioners in
the case at docket No. 7221-06 are liable for the accuracy-
related penalty under sec. 6662(a).
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008