§1408

Summary Opinion 2000-144, we held to the contrary. In the present case, respondent did not plead or otherwise invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See Rule 39; Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979). Accordingly, we do not apply that doctrine. Nevertheless, we observe that both our analysis and holding in the present case are fully consistent with our analysis and holding in the prior case.

210 (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Federal statutes then governing military retirement pay prevented State courts from treating military retirement pay as community property. In response to McCarty, Congress enacted in 1982 the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1983, Pub. L. 97-252, sec. 1002, 96 Stat. 730 (1982), which added section 1408 to title 10 of the United States Code. Under 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(c)(1) (2006), a State court may treat disposable military retired pay in a div

In general, 10 U.S.C. section 1408(c)(1), provides, inter alia a court may treat disposable retired or retainer pay payable to a member * * * either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court. The provisions of the USFSPA were intended “

1408 (2012)), which now governs States' authority to award military retirement in divorces and separation agreements. However, because petitioner received no - 12 - [*12] military retirement payments during the period at issue, we need not and do not address compliance with USFSPA. We now turn to section 71(b)(1)(B), which provides that a pay

1408(c) (2000).3 A Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) account statement shows petitioner's 2009 gross retirement pay as $48,966, which includes: (1) approximately $2,244.40 attributable to the portion ofhis military retirement pay that he was required to waive because ofhis election to receive VA disability compensation (VA waiver c

The USFSPA was enacted to address issues that arise when a member ofthe military divorces. The purpose of the USFSPA is not to address the tax treatment ofmilitary benefits. Rather, its purpose is to permit Federal, State, and certain other courts to consider military retired pay when fixing property rights between parties to a di

As of the date on which petitioner's divorce became effec- tive, section 1408 of title 10 of the United States Code (title 10) defined the term "disposable retired pay" to which peti- tioner's divorce decree and petitioner's property settlement agreement referred.

1408 (2000), 25 percent of his disposable retirement pay (retirement payments). On June 30, 2000, petitioner retired from the U.S. Navy. In August of the same year, petitioner began receiving his retirement pay, but he failed to make payments to Ms. Holdman as set forth in the divorce decree. On December 4, 2000, Ms. Holdman initiated a contem

1408 (2000).3 Ms. Warriner submitted a motion to amend Final Orders to the Colorado court, and an Amended Order (Amended Order), issued on May 9, 1996, was incorporated into and amended the Decree of Dissolution and Final Orders entered on February 1, 1996. The Amended Order provided in pertinent part: 2. [Ms. Warriner] is entitled to a [sic]

In re Marriage of Gallo, 752 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1988). The holding in Gallo was prospective in nature only, see In re Marriage of Booker, 833 P.2d 734, 740 (Colo. 1992), and consequently does not affect our analysis. - 6 - petitioner an ownership interest in Mr. Jefferies’ future retired military pay. We have no reason to question th

730, which added section 1408 to title 10 of the United States Code (hereinafter 10 U.S.C.

1408 (2000).2 Ms. Warriner submitted a Motion to amend Final Orders to the Colorado court, and an Amended Order (“Amended Order”), issued on May 9, 1996, was incorporated into and amended the Decree of Dissolution and Final Orders entered on February 1, 1996. The Amended Order provided in pertinent part: 2. [Ms. Warriner] is entitled to a [sic

Government activity, it is, therefore, ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1408, the United States Navy Finance Center (or other appropriate U.S.

1408 (2000) in the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act, Pub. L. 97-252, sec. 1002, 96 Stat. 730-735 (1982). The provisions of 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408, Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance with court orders, relevant to the case at hand provide as follows: (a) Definitions.--In this section: (1) The term “court” means-- (A)

Although enacted to authorize State courts to treat "disposable retired or retainer pay" of a member of the Armed Forces as community property, the language also covers property divisions in common law, or equitable distribution states. See Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 584 n.2 (1989); see S. Rept. 97-502 at 2-3. For purposes

1408(c)(1) (1994), authorizes State courts to treat retirement benefits as community property. Therefore, since the State courts have treated such pensions as community property, see Wilder v. Wilder, 534 P.2d 1355, 1357 (Wash. 1975), the pension received by petitioner in 1991 is taxable to her. Under section 61(a), gross income includes all i