Baskovich v. Commissioner
Opinion
*256
In 1986, P received a cash distribution following the termination of a qualified profit-sharing plan in which P was a participant. In reporting the distribution on their Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1986, Ps computed the tax due on the distribution using the 10-year averaging method provided in
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 7,376.78 in petitioners' Federal income tax for the taxable year 1986. The issue for decision is whether petitioners are entitled to elect 10-year averaging pursuant to
At a hearing held on April 17, 1990, petitioner Frank Baskovich (petitioner or Frank), who was not placed under oath, explained the facts of petitioners' case to the trial judge. These facts as stated were not objected to by respondent's counsel and accordingly are deemed stipulated.
Petitioner also submitted at the hearing the Erie Vehicle Company Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the Plan) and a joint and survivor annuity notice which were also received into evidence without objection by respondent. Certain additional facts were stipulated in writing and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioners resided in Chicago, Illinois, at the time they filed their petition.
During 1986, Frank was an employee of the Erie Vehicle Company (Erie) and a participant in the Plan. The Plan, a qualified plan within the meaning of section 401(a), was terminated by Erie in 1986.
At the time the Plan was terminated, petitioners received various notices, including a "notice to terminated participant," a joint and survivor annuity notice, *258 an election to waive joint and survivor annuity and a participant release agreement.
The notice to terminated participant stated that as of June 30, 1986, Frank's account balance in the Plan was $ 27,749.41. The notice further provided that because the Plan was terminated, Frank was 100 percent vested.
On October 2, 1986, petitioners received a joint and survivor annuity notice. The notice advised that if the joint and survivor annuity form of payment was waived, the Plan administrator would then have the discretion to distribute Frank's benefits either as a lump sum payment, as a payment in installments or as an annuity. Petitioners executed separate elections to waive the joint and survivor annuity.
On November 5, 1986, petitioners executed a participant release agreement acknowledging receipt of a check in the amount of $ 28,188.05 from the Plan trustee representing payment in full of Frank's vested benefits in the Plan. The release agreement provided in pertinent part: The Internal Revenue Code permits you to avoid current taxation on any portion of the taxable amount of an eligible distribution by rolling over that portion into another qualified employer retirement *259 plan that accepts rollover contributions or into an individual retirement arrangement (IRA). A tax-free rollover is accomplished by transferring the amount you are rolling over to the new plan or IRA not later than sixty (60) days after you receive the amount from this plan and notifying the trustee or issuer of the new plan or IRA that you are making a rollover contribution. * * * * * * If your distribution qualifies under
At the time the distribution was made, Frank was not laid off or fired from his job with Erie, nor did he quit or retire. Frank was not *260 disabled at the time he received the distribution.
Frank did not roll over any part of the distribution into a new plan or an IRA, nor was he 59 1/2 at the time of the distribution. Petitioners reported the distribution on their 1986 Federal tax return by completing and attaching Form 4972 (special 10-year averaging method) to the return.
Petitioners made no effort to avoid current taxation of the amount distributed from the Plan through a rollover as provided in
As also previously noted, the general rule contained in
The term "lump sum distribution" is defined (for present purposes) in (A) LUMP SUM DISTRIBUTION. -- For purposes of this section and (i) on account of the employee's death, (ii) after the employee attains age 59 1/2, (iii) on account of the employee's separation from the service, or (iv) after the employee has become disabled (within the meaning of section 72(m)(7)) from a trust which forms a part of a plan described in section 401(a) and which is exempt from tax under section 501 * * *.
Petitioners have not provided any support for the proposition that the distribution they received was a lump sum distribution within the Internal Revenue Code provisions quoted above. In fact, petitioners have stipulated, consistent with the manner in which they completed Form 4972, that the distribution was not effected for any of the four reasons specified in
*263 Petitioners' only argument seems to be that the distribution was forced upon them by virtue of Erie's decision to terminate the Plan. Unfortunately, the mere fact that the distribution was effected as a consequence of the termination of the Plan does not justify petitioners' use of the 10-year averaging method for computing the tax attributable to the distribution. As we held in
Without the benefit of any proof that the distribution in question was a lump sum distribution, we are required to hold that petitioners are not entitled to use the 10-year averaging method provided in
To reflect the*264 foregoing,
Footnotes
1. By Order of the Chief Judge, this case was reassigned as indicated for disposition.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.