If an employee’s interest in the employer’s qualified plan is community property, then the interest is considered to be owned one-half by the employee and one-half by the employee’s spouse. Accordingly, if the employee were to predecease the spouse, only the employee’s community interest in any death benefit would be includable in the employee’s estate ( Q
3993). Likewise, if the employee’s spouse were to die first, only the employee’s spouse’s community interest in the plan would be includable in the gross estate.
1 The extent to which employee interests in qualified plans are community property is a matter of local law. There appears to be little doubt that an employee’s vested interest in a qualified plan, to the extent it is attributable to contributions made while the employee was married and living in a community property state, is community property.
2 Moreover, there appears to be increasing support for the view that nonvested benefits in a retirement plan are not mere expectancies but are property, and thus can be community property.
3
1. IRC § 2033.
2.
Herring v. Blakeley, 385 S.W. 2d 843 (Tex. 1965);
Lynch v. Lawrence, 293 So. 2d 598 (La. App. 1974, writs
ref’d.);
T.L. James & Co. v. Montgomery, 332 So. 2d 834 (La. 1976);
Everson v. Everson, 537 P.2d 624 (Ariz. App. 1975),
aff’d and mod’d, 494 Pa. 348, 431 A.2d 889 (1981);
Marriage of Ward, 50 Cal. App. 3d 150, 123 Cal. Rptr. 234 (1975);
Fox v. Smith, 531 S.W. 2d 654 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975); 50
Texas L. Rev. 334 (1972); 17
Loyola L. Rev. 162 (1970-71); 24
So. Calif. Tax Inst. 469 (1972); 94 ALR3d 176.
3.
Johnson v. Johnson, 638 P.2d 705 (Ariz. 1981);
Re Marriage of Brown, 544 P.2d 561 (Cal. 1976);
Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W. 2d 661
(Tex. 1976).