Olintz v. Comm'r
Opinion
*60 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2002 in the amount of $ 5,361 and the accuracy-related penalty under
The principal issue is whether petitioner is liable for the 10- percent additional tax under
Some of the facts were stipulated and are incorporated herein. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Melbourne, Florida.
Petitioner was an employee of Bell Atlantic for 10 years. Bell Atlantic, either by merger or other type of corporate reorganization, became known as Verizon or Verizon Communications. During the year 1999, petitioner retired. At the time of his retirement, petitioner was 56 years old.
As an employee, petitioner was a participant*62 in two pension plans of his employer. One plan was described as a "Direct Savings Account Plan", and the other plan was described as a "401(k) plan". Both plans were qualified plans under
(1) Imposition of additional tax. -- If any taxpayer receives
any amount from a qualified retirement plan (as defined in
section 4974(c)), the taxpayer's tax under this chapter for the
taxable year in which such amount is received shall be increased
by an amount equal to 10 percent of the*63 portion of such amount
which is includable in gross income.
The 10-percent additional tax, however, does not apply to certain distributions.
Petitioner acknowledged at trial that he used the proceeds of the distribution to pay personal expenses and a substantial amount was used to pay expenses of his fiancee, who was in a financial bind.
The Court agrees with respondent that petitioner's use of the distribution proceeds in this fashion does not exempt the distribution from the additional tax under
Petitioner conceded the other adjustment noted earlier relating to two items of unreported income. Petitioner presented no evidence addressing the
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. The notice of deficiency also included an adjustment of $ 62 in unreported interest income. Petitioner conceded that issue at trial. Petitioner also reported nonemployee compensation of $ 2,354, which he reported as other income on his income tax return. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that this income was subject to self-employment tax. Petitioner did not challenge that determination.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.