certainly distinguishable on its facts because it involved an early retirement incentive entailing a one-time post-separation contribution, the Legislature made general reference to the case in direct connection with the devising of a scheme for the equitable division of defined benefit retirement plans. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501(c) (captioned "Defined benefit retirement plans”). Therefore, the Assembly’s focus on the character of the division in Gordon, as opposed to the particular type of benefit at issue in the case, seems apparent. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501(c), Official Comment (crediting the position from Gordon that "would have included the portion of the [early retirement benefit] paid for by the employer in the marital estate” (emphasis added)); Gordon, 545 Pa. at 399, 681 A.2d at 736 (<HOLDING>). Justice EAKIN dissenting. I must differ from
holding that the portion of the retirementplan annuity paid for by the employer but not the portion paid for by the employee  is includable in the marital estate  holding that clear language in one portion of a later may cause ambiguity in another portion to dissipate holding no error occurred in excluding portion of statement offered by defendant because the rejected portion of the conversation in no manner explains or modifies that portion of the conversation which came into evidence holding defendant may receive only the portion of his fees under 42 usc  1988 that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim