Accordingly, it is held that, beginning with October 1964, L is R's “wife” and on the basis of her application filed in October 1964 she is entitled to wife's insurance benefit on R's earnings record. SECTIONS 202 (b) (1), 216(d) (1), and 216(d) (4).—WIFE'S INSUR ANCE BENEFITS-DIVORCED WIFE "DIVORCE A VINCULO MATRIMONII" 20 CFR 404.1105 SSR 69-1 Where, pursuant to section 7(5) of the New York Domestic Relation Law, the court granted the insured worker a degree of annulment dissolving his marriage to the claimant, which had existed for a continuous period of over 20 years, and directed that he make monthly payments for the care and maintenance of the claimant, and where, under New York law, such decree has the same effect as a final decree of divorce, held, the decree, although designated an annulment, may be considered a decree of “divorce a vinculo matrimonii" within the meaning of section 216(d)(4) of the Social Security Act, and accordingly, claimant is entitled to wife's insurance benefits as the divorced wife of the insured worker, all other conditions for entitlement having been met. The Z State Hospital filed an application on behalf of W for wife's insurance benefits as the divorced wife of R, an old-age insurance beneficiary. The evidence established that R, in 1949, after more than 20 years of marriage to W, was awarded a decree of annulment of marriage under section 7(5) of the New York Domestic Relations Law on the ground of W's incurable insanity which had existed for a period of more than 5 years. This decree also directed R to make monthly payments for the suitable care and maintenance of W. Section 202(b) (1) of the Social Security Act provides, in pertinent part, that wife's insurance benefits may be payable for months after August 1965 to a divorced wife of an individual entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits where certain conditions, not here in issue, are met. Section 216(d) of the Act provides, in part, as follows: (1) The term "divorced wife" means a woman divorced from an individual, but only if she had been married to such individual for a period of 20 years immediately before the date the divorce became effective. (4) The terms "divorce" and "divorced" refer to a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The question raised is whether the decree of annulment may be treated as a divorce a vinculo matrimonii within the meaning of section 216(d) (4), supra, for the purpose of establishing W's status as R's divorced wife, thus entitling her to wife's insurance benefits. The New York Supreme Court, in Kuphal v. Kuphal, 29 N.Y.S. 2d 868 (Sup. Ct. 1941), has described the difference between an annulment proceeding and a proceeding brought under Domestic Relations Law section 7(5) as follows: The theory of an annulment is that a valid marriage never came into existence. Here the plaintiff's cause of action is based upon a case arising subsequent to the marriage and hence, is an action to dissolve a marriage validly contracted, for cause recognized by the law arising after the inception of the marital relationship. See also Ambruster v. Ambruster, 8 N.Y.S. 2d 821 (Sup. Ct. 1938). The complaint in this case similarly asserts that a ground for dissolution arose after a valid marriage came into being. It thus appears that the "annulment" proceeding authorized by Domestic Relations Law, section 7(5) is in effect a proceeding for divorce. In the light of the above decisions, it appears reasonable to deem a decree of dissolution of a marriage on the ground of insanity arising after the marriage as equivalent to a “divorce a vinculo matrimonii.” Such an interpretation would appear consistent with the intent of Congress in extending wife's insurance benefits to women divorced after 20 years of marriage. The report of the House Committee on Ways and Means on H.R. 6675, the Socal Security Amendments of 1965, stated the change was meant to: provide protection mainly for women who have spent their lives in marriages that are dissolved when they are far along in years * * * from loss of benefit rights through divorce. H.R. Rep. 213, 89th Cong., 1st sess. 94 (1965). This purpose is equally applicable to the case of a woman whose marriage lasted for 20 years prior to being dissolved pursuant to section 7(5) of the New York Domestic Relations Law. Whether the decree issued by the State court is called a divorce or annulment under State law is irrelevant to the economic situation faced by the individual where the decree has the legal effect of terminating the marriage. In view of the foregoing it is held that the decree granted under section 7(5) of the New York Domestic Relations Law, although designated an annulment, constituted a divorce “a vinculo matrimonii” within the meaning of section 216(d) of the Act, and accordingly, W having met all other conditions of entitlement, is entitled to wife's insurance benefits as R's divorced wife. SECTIONS 202(b) (1) 202 (q).-WIFE'S INSURANCE BENEFITS— REENTITLEMENT OF DIVORCED WIFE-AMOUNT OF BENEFIT REDUCTION BEFORE AND AFTER AGE 65 SSR 68-1 A woman, who would attain age 65 in April 1966, was entitled at age 62 to wife's insurance benefits until January 1965 when her entitlement was terminated by reason of her divorce from the worker. Effective with September 1965, her entitlement to benefits was reinstated under section 202(b) (1) of the Act as amended in 1965 since, at the time of the divorce, she had attained age 62 and had been married to the worker for a period of 20 years immediately before the date her divorce became final. Held, the amount of the wife's insurance benefit for months before the month in which the woman attained age 65 must be reduced under section 202(q)(1) of the Act by 25/36 of 1 percent multiplied by the number of months between ages 62 and 65, including the months of January through August 1965 for which she was not entitled to benefits; however, her benefit amount for months beginning with the month in which she attained age 65 will be reduced by 25/36 of 1 percent multiplied by the number of months between ages 62 and 65 but excluding the nonentitlement months, thus increasing her benefit amount at age 65. W, the wife of A, became entitled to wife's insurance benefits on A's earnings record beginning with April 1963, the month in which she attained age 62. Since W had elected to receive reduced benefits for 36 months before the month in which she would attain age 65, the monthly benefit amount which would have been paid her had her entitlement begun at age 65 was reduced under the provisions of section 202 (q) (1) of the Social Security Act by 25 percent (36 months times 25/36 of 1 percent). In January 1965, A and W were divorced. an event which terminated W's entitlement to wife's insurance benefits under the provisions of section 202(b) (1) of the Act as then in effect. However, the Social Security Amendments of 1965 (P.L. 89–97, enacted July 30, 1965) liberalized section 202(b) (1) of the Act to permit payment of wife's insurance benefits to a divorcee who has attained age 62 and had been married to the worker for a period of 20 years immediately before the date her divorce became final. This provision is applicable with respect to monthly insurance benefits beginning no earlier than September 1965. (For a full discussion of the applicability of section 202(b)(1) to cases where divorce occurred prior to enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, see SSR 67-1 (January 1967.) ) Since W had attained age 62 and had been married to A for more than 20 years at the time she and A were divorced, her entitlement to wife's insurance benefits on A's earnings record was reinstated on the basis of a new application, effective with September 1965. While the Social Security Amendments of 1965 amended section 202(b) (1) of the Act as indicated above so as to permit reinstatement of entitlement to wife's insurance benefits which had previously been terminated by divorce, there was no parallel amendment to section 202(q) of the Act to specify whether, or to what extent, nonentitlement months may be omitted in calculating the reduced benefit amount in such reinstatement cases. Section 202(q) of the Act, relating to reduction of wife's and other insurance benefits, provides in pertinent part as follows: [a] (q) (1) If the first month for which an individual is entitled to (A) * * * 25/36 of 1 percent of such amount if such benefit is a wife's (B) (i) the number of months in the reduction period for such benefit (ii) the number of months in the adjusted reduction period for such benefit (determined under paragraph (7)), if such benefit is for the month in which such individual attains retirement age or for any month thereafter. (6) For purposes of this subsection, the "reduction period" for an individual's insurance benefit is the period • wife's (A) beginning * [she (ii) with the first day of the first month for which * elects to receive reduced wife's benefits] ***, and (B) ending with the last day of the month before the month in which such individual attains retirement age. * wife's (7) For purposes of this subsection, the "adjusted reduction period" for an individual's * insurance benefit is the reduction period prescribed by paragraph (6) for such benefit, excluding from such period(A) any month in which such benefit was subject to deductions under section 203(b), 203(c) (1), 203(d)(1), or 222(b), (C) * * any month for which such individual was not entitled to such benefits because the spouse on whose wages and self-employment income such benefits were based ceased to be under a disability The question to be resolved in this case is whether the months for which W was not entitled to benefits (January through August 1965) may be omitted from the "reduction period" as defined in section 202 (q) (6), and from the "adjusted reduction period," as defined in section 202 (q) (7), in computing the reduced benefit amount payable to W: (1) for the months beginning with September 1965 and before attainment of age 65, i.e., for September 1965 through March 1966, and (2) for the months beginning with the month in which she attained age 65, i.e., for April 1966 and following months. If the nonentitlement months (January through August 1965) may be omitted from the "reduction period” and “adjusted reduction period," then W's benefit amount would be reduced by 19.44 percent (28 months times 25/36 of 1 percent) rather than by 25 percent (36 months times 25/36 of 1 percent). To consider the absence of a specific statutory directive on the point to mean that nonentitlement months must always be included in calculating the amount of the benefit reduction in reinstatement cases of the kind involved here could lead to clearly inequitable results. It is well settled that a statute need not be literally read when it is clear that the Congress intended something it omitted to express, especially where such literal interpretation would lead to a clearly unjust result. Lacking a specific directive for determining the benefit amount in the type of situation presented here, reference must be made to the method of calculating the reduction which the Congress expressly provided for use in analogous situations. On that basis, it is concluded that in calculating the reduction of the benefit amount of a claimant whose entitlement to wife's insurance benefits is reinstated under the circumstances of this case, the months of nonentitlement because of a prior divorce must be included in the "reduction period" (as defined in section 202 (q) (6)) in computing the claimant's benefit amount for months before the month in which she attained age 65. This conclusion is based on the analogous situation where the Congress, in enacting the provisions of section 202 (q) quoted above, clearly did not intend, in computing a claimant's benefit amount for months before age 65, to exclude from the "reduction period" those months in which the claimant received no benefit payments because of deductions under section 203 (b) (deductions on account of work), sections 203 (c) (1) and 203(d) (1) (deductions because of noncovered work outside the United States), or section 222(b) (deductions for refusal to accept rehabiliclearly did not intend in the foregoing situations that a wife-beneficiary be given a "credit" for months in which she received no benefit payments, at least in the calculation of her benefit amount for months before the month of attaining age 65, there appears to be no reason for concluding that the Congress intended that a wife-beneficiary be given a "credit" for those months in which, by reason of her divorce from the worker, she did not receive wife's insurance benefits. On the other hand, section 202 (q) (7) of the Act does provide that months in which the above-mentioned section 203 and section 222(b) deductions are imposed, as well as months of nonentitlement where the spouse's disability has ceased, will be excluded from the "adjusted reduction period" in computing the amount of the wife's insurance benefit payable beginning with the month in which she attains age 65. Since the Congress did allow a "credit" for those months in computing the benefit amount for the month of attainment of age 65 and thereafter, a similar "credit" in the type of situation under consideration here would seem to be consonant with Congressional policy. Thus, where entitlement to wife's insurance benefits before age 65 was terminated by divorce but was later reinstated under the Act as amended in 1965, nonentitlement months will be omitted from the "adjusted reduction period" in calculating the amount of the reduced wife's insurance benefit for months beginning with the month in which the beneficiary attains age 65. Accordingly, it is held that in computing the amount of the reduction in W's benefit for the months September 1965 through March 1966 (i.e., for months before she attained age 65), the months for which she was not entitled to benefits (January through August 1965) will be included in the "reduction period," resulting in a reduction of 25 percent in her benefit amount (36 months times 25/36 of 1 percent); but in computing the amount of the reduction in W's benefit for April 1966 (the month in which she attained age 65) and following months, the months for which she was not entitled to benefits will be excluded from the "adjusted reduction period," resulting in a reduction of 19.44 percent in her benefit amount (28 months times 25/36 of 1 percent). Husband's Insurance Benefits SECTION 202 (c) (1) (C).-HUSBAND'S INSURANCE BENEFITS ONE-HALF SUPPORT-POOLED INCOME 20 CFR 404.350 SSR 68-66c LEWIS v. GARDNER, U.S.D.C., Md., Civil No. 18741 (2-21-68) (CCH U.I.R. Fed. Par. 14, 958) Where a claimant filed an application for husband's insurance benefits based on his wife's earnings record and the evidence established that during the 12-month period preceding the wife's entitlement to old-age insurance benefits, the wife's total income was $6,074.23 and the husband's total income was $2,988.30, and there was no evidence that any significant part of the income of either was used for other than living expenses, held, under such circumstances it is reasonable to assume that husband and wife shared equally in the total family income of $9,062.53, and thus that the |