PALERMINO v. COMMISSIONER
Opinion
*43 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
POWELL, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 1,568 in petitioner's 1998 Federal income tax. The issue is whether a distribution from petitioner's retirement plan is includable in petitioner's gross income.2 Petitioner resided in San Diego, California, at the time the petition was filed.
*44 Background
[3] From 1992 to 1999, petitioner was employed as a buyer for Smith & Nephew, Inc. Smith & Nephew established a retirement plan for its employees, which the parties stipulate qualifies as a
On May 15, 1998, respondent served a levy on Fidelity for unpaid taxes and statutory additions of $ 5,582.03 for the taxable year 1996 and sent petitioner a "Taxpayer's Copy of Notice of Levy". Fidelity complied with the levy and distributed $ 5,582.03 from petitioner's retirement plan to respondent on June 19, 1998. Petitioner did not include the $ 5,582 distribution as income on his 1998 Form 1040EZ. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that the $ 5,582 distribution was includable in petitioner's 1998 gross income.
Discussion
[5] For a retirement*45 plan to qualify under
Respondent levied on petitioner's
Preretirement distributions from a qualified retirement plan*46 are treated as nonannuity distributions. See
The employee's "investment in the contract" includes amounts contributed by the employer, "but only to the extent that * * * such amounts were includible in the gross income of the employee".
Petitioner's entire balance in the retirement plan constituted elective contributions, and the distribution from petitioner's retirement plan occurred before his separation from service, death, or disability and before he reached the age of 59 1/2. As a result, the contributions were not included*47 in petitioner's gross income at the time of contribution, and petitioner has no "investment in the contract" which may be excluded from his gross income. In short, petitioner contributed to the retirement plan a portion of his salary that was not taxed at the time of contribution; the retirement plan cannot later distribute the untaxed cash contributions without petitioner's being subject to the income tax. Accordingly, respondent's determination is sustained, and we hold that the entire amount of the distribution from petitioner's retirement plan is includable in his gross income.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
Decision will be entered for respondent.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.↩
2. Respondent did not assess the 10-percent addition to tax for early withdrawals from qualified retirement plans. See
sec. 72(t)(1) and(2)(A) . For distributions made on account of a levy under sec. 6331 before Dec. 31, 1999, the Commissioner acquiesced following this Court's decision inMurillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-13 , affd. without published opinion166 F.3d 1201 (2d Cir. 1998) , and no longer assesses the 10-percent addition to tax undersec. 72(t) . See alsoLarotonda v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 287↩ (1987) .3. For purposes of
sec. 401(k) , "elective contributions * * * are treated as employer contributions."Sec. 1.401(k)-1(a)(4)(ii), Income Tax Regs.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.