The SBP is a program created by Congress to provide an annuity for the surviving spouse (and/or children). The program also provides automatic coverage for any servicemember who dies in the line of duty. It is available to all members of the military to include the Coast Guard, the National Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And yes, it covers us second class citizens in the Reserves.

Under the Former Spouses Protection Act, the coverage is automatic. In other words, the spouse has to actively refuse coverage. This provision was placed in the law to protect a spouse who after twenty years of marriage gets dumped by the servicemember upon retirement. A servicemember can opt out. But, the spouse must sign a waiver. This election must be made prior to the first day the member become eligible to receive the retired pay.

A reservist must make an election within 90 days of receiving the 20 year letter: (1) decline to make an election until age 60; (2) elect coverage to begin on the servicemember’s death or upon the date the servicemember would have been eligible to receive the retired pay, whichever is later; or (3) elect coverage to commence upon the servicemember’s death, regardless of the member’s age when death occurs. However, if the election is not made, then the servicemember is automatically enrolled in (3). A reserve servicemember who elects to forgo the SBP in the 90 day period can change his/her mind when he/she is eligible to receive retired pay.

A former spouse can receive SBP. A judge in a divorce can award SBP. The election to the former spouse must be made within one year of the judgment of divorce. Only one spouse or ex-spouse can receive SBP. This is no splitting or allocating. If ex-spouse is getting the SBP, the new spouse is locked out.

SBP used to have a “social security” offset. A spouse would receive 55% of the retiree’s pay until the spouse turned 62. Then the SBP payments would be reduced to 35% of the retired pay. In 2007, the rule changed, as of April 1, 2008 all spouses will received 55% regardless of their age. The social security offset is now gone. From April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, spouses over the age of 62 got 50% of the pay. On April 1, 2008, that went up to 55%.

This new law goes a long way to fixing some of the problems inherent with the program.

In a recent decision by the U.S. Tax court, Proctor v. IRS, 129 TC No. 12 the division of military retired pay was treated as alimony not a property distribution. This may also have implications for the New York Police or Fire Department VSF.

Under New York law, any benefit to be paid in the future, but earned during the marriage is subject to equitable distribution. Military retired pay is a perfect example. The right to the pay was earned by 20 years of service. The retiree gets paid after she/he retires and as long as he/she lives. Unlike a 401K, there is no account with money to be drawn upon. New York treats this as property, and is subject to property division.

But, apparently, the tax law treats military retired pay differently. In the Proctor decision, the court stated that under Internal Revenue Code section 71(b) payments to an ex-spouse of her share of military retired pay can be considered alimony, and therefore tax deductible to the retiree. The court stated that “in order to qualify as alimony, payments must meet the requirements of section 71(b)(1) (A) through (D)”.

(b) Alimony or separate maintenance payments defined. For purposes of this section–
(1) In general. The term “alimony or separate maintenance payment” means any payment in cash if–
(A) such payment is received by (or on behalf of) a spouse under a divorce or separation instrument,
(B) the divorce or separation instrument does not designate such payment as a payment which is not includible in gross income under this section and not allowable as a deduction under section 215 [26 USCS § 215],
(C) in the case of an individual legally separated from his spouse under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance, the payee spouse and the payor spouse are not members of the same household at the time such payment is made, and
(D) there is no liability to make any such payment for any period after the death of the payee spouse and there is no liability to make any payment (in cash or property) as a substitute for such payments after the death of the payee spouse.

The court found that payment order met the requirements of the statute. This is true even if the divorce decree refers to the payments as part of the division of martial property. The court stated the divorce court’s classifications do not matter. “Labels attached to payments mandated by a decree of divorce or marriage settlement are not controlling.” The court went on to say that “while the designation need not mimic the statutory (B) will generally be met if there is no ‘clear, explicit and express direction” in the divorce decree stating that the payment is not to be treated as alimony.” Since the decree in question does not contain such language the requirements of section 71(b)(1)(B) were met.

The key point is that the divorce decree must either be silent as to the designation of the payments, or state that the payments will be treated as alimony. If you already have a decree, please don’t use this decision as license to take the deductions, talk to your accountant and follow his/her advice.

Note Two: The change in the law doesn’t lessen by feelings about the below decision.

Regular readers know I that don’t slam or criticize judges, I merely explain the law. Well that changes with this posting. I am furious at a decision by a panel of appellate judges in Albany who rubber stamped an ill-advised decision to penalize a mother for the crime of being a patriotic American. The case, Diffin v. Diffin involves a mother who got custody of her son as part of a divorce settlement in 2000. On April 2004, the mother got mobilized and went to Iraq.

The father moved for a change in custody, and the mother plead the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Family Court stayed the action, but granted temporary custody to the father until the mother returned from Iraq.

When the mother returned, the Family Court awarded custody to the father. The appellate division, third department affirmed the decision. The reason was that because her military service, she has a less settled life. Therefore, it was in the best interests of the child to change custody to the father.

The Court tried to claim that the military service had no impact on the decision, but then they go on to find that her military service was the primary factor. To put a fig leaf on the decision, they talk about how in the past year the child is in a stable environment and that it would be disruptive to uproot him. But, in the end of the decision the anti-military bias shows through: “although the disruption caused by her deployment was not her fault, this record does not demonstrate that Darrell’s best interests would be enhanced by a order a change (i.e. a return to his mother) in his present physical custody.”

Justices, Cardona, Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, should be ashamed of themselves for this blatantly anti-servicemember decision. Justices Cardona and Spain bear particular responsibility as they are prior military.

There are a large number of single parents in the military and particularly in the Guard and Reserves. The reason we have the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and the Servicemembers Employment Re-employment Rights Act (USERA) is to fulfil a public policy of maintaining the Guard and Reserves. Patriotic Americans who go the extra step and serve our country should not be punished by small minded people who are shielded by sacrifices that our military members are making every day.

Here, we have a Guardsman who did not shirk from her duty. She did not make excuses. When the call came, she raised her hand and went into a war zone. The thanks that a grateful nation bestowed upon her was to take her son away from her.

To add insult to injury the knife was wielded by Presiding Justice Cardona, a Viet Nam veteran.

The husband in this case had retired as an AGR New York Guardsman. In 1998 when he retired from the National Guard, he took off for Puerto Rico. Eight years later, the wife decided to get a divorce. Under New York divorce law, the military retired pay is marital property, but under Puerto Rican law, it is not. The question facing Judge Kent was: which law to apply.

Under the Former Spouses Protection Act Congress specifically stated that military retired pay is subject to laws of the state where the divorce is ordered. There is one kicker, the military member must either be a resident of the state or consent to the state’s jurisdiction. If he is a resident of Georgia, and the spouse tries to divorce him in Nevada, the court cannot divide his military pay. It can only be divided in Georgia, or if he consents to the Nevada court.

My case was different. The husband was a Guardsman for 20 years. He never left the state of New York and his boss was the TAG. Upon retirement he moved to Puerto Rico. So, does the Former Spouses Protection Act govern? Is it meant to cover a Guardsman who spent his entire military career in New York working for the TAG, and then moves out of state upon retirement? The answer is: I don’t know. At this time, there is no decision by any judge in the United States that I have been able find on this issue. My argument was that the act should not apply. He worked for 20 years for the Governor, not the President. I argued that the Former Spouses Protection Act was not designed to cover a career Guardsman being sued for divorce in the state where served and retired from. Naturally, my opponent argued the other side. Judge Kent was caught in the middle. Fortunately, the judge,who is a gentleman, and famous for cutting to the heart of an issue, managed to get the parties to settle. So, this question is still unanswered.

The lesson here is to be careful. If you are the spouse of guardsman who is retiring and he intends to leave the state, start the divorce now before he establishes residence in another state. If you are the guardsman, after you leave the state, establish residence and then commence the divorce. Here, because the parties let the matter sit for several years, multiple problems occurred. If we had not settled, the husband was facing 10 years of arrears payments to the wife, if we won. If we lost, the wife was potentially facing not getting any money from the pension.