Dunkin v. Comm'r
United States Tax Court
Petitioner (P), who was divorced, was entitled to retireand receive pension payments. If P had retired, his formerspouse would have been entitled under California communityproperty law to receive an amount from P equal to one-half ofhis pension. However, P continued working, delaying his receiptof pension benefits.
Read the full summary
Petitioner (P), who was divorced, was entitled to retireand receive pension payments. If P had retired, his formerspouse would have been entitled under California communityproperty law to receive an amount from P equal to one-half ofhis pension. However, P continued working, delaying his receiptof pension benefits. During the years P continued working, P'sformer spouse was entitled under California community propertylaw to receive a monthly payment from P equal to one-half of thepension benefit which P had earned during their marriage andwhich P would have received if he had retired on the…
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN MICHAEL DUNKIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Dunkin v. Comm'r
No. 4448-03
United States Tax Court
124 T.C. 180; 2005 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 10; 124 T.C. No. 10; 35 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1189;
March 31, 2005, Filed
Petitioner (P), who was divorced, was entitled to retire
and receive pension payments. If P had retired, his former
spouse would have been entitled under California community
property law to receive an amount from P equal to one-half of
his pension. However, P continued working, delaying his receipt
of pension benefits. During the years P continued…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Lucas v. EarlSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Aquilino v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- United States v. RodgersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. National Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Poe v. SeabornSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.