Madden v. Comm'r
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARVEL,
Petitioners resided in Banning, California, when the petition in this case was filed.
Petitioners timely filed their joint Federal income tax return for 2003. On their return, petitioners claimed an overpayment of $ 2,372.90. Petitioners also reported a premature distribution of $ 17,786.51 from their qualified retirement plan. Petitioners did not indicate on their return that they were liable for any additional amount as a result of this premature distribution.
Respondent applied petitioners' 2003 overpayment to their unpaid tax liabilities for 1991 and 1992. 2 Respondent subsequently determined that petitioners' early *315 distribution from their qualified retirement plan resulted in a 10-percent additional tax under
On December 12, 2005, petitioners filed their petition. Petitioners argue that their 2003 overpayment *316 should have been applied to cover the $ 1,779 deficiency that resulted from the additional tax required by
Under
We cannot recredit petitioners' overpayment. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise its jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress.
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.↩
2. Respondent applied $ 874.85 against petitioners' 1991 tax liability and the remaining $ 1,498.05 towards petitioners' 1992 tax liability.↩
3.
Sec. 72(t)(1) generally provides that if a taxpayer receives any amount from a qualified retirement plan, the taxpayer's Federal income tax liability is increased by an amount equal to 10 percent of the portion of the amount received from the plan which is includable in gross income.Sec. 72(t)(2) lists the circumstances in which a taxpayer is permitted to receive distributions from his or her qualified retirement plan without incurring the 10-percent additional tax mandated bysec. 72(t)(1)↩ .4. The $ 1,779 deficiency calculated by respondent is 10 percent of $ 17,786.51, the amount of the distribution from petitioners' retirement plan includable in gross income.↩
5. Petitioners concede that they are liable for the $ 1,779 deficiency under
sec. 72(t)↩ .6. Petitioners mistakenly believed their case was calendared for Feb. 6, 2007.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.