- 8 -
Thus, as of December 29, 2000, the terms of the loan could no
longer have required “substantially level amortization * * * over
the term of the loan”. Id. Because at that time the loan
violated the terms of section 72(p)(2)(C), it no longer met the
requirements for the section 72(p)(2)(A) exception, and under
section 72(p)(1)(A) the loan amount was treated as having been
distributed to, and received by, petitioner in the taxable year
2000.
Petitioner argues that he did not receive a deemed
distribution from his retirement plan because he never received
(a) the quarterly retirement account statements that were mailed
to his employment address, (b) the letter dated November 27,
2000, that requested that he remit the delinquent payments, or
(c) the Form 1099-R which was issued to him. Petitioner admits
that he knew the payments were not being deducted from his
paycheck. In fact, petitioner asserts that he contacted GE’s
accounting department by e-mail, notifying them that neither his
loan payments nor his child support payments were being deducted
from his paychecks. Petitioner also admits that he did not make
any loan payments directly to the plan.
None of the assertions that petitioner offers in support of
his argument, even if accepted as fact, would alter the result
under the statute. As discussed above, petitioner did not make
the periodic payments required under the terms of the loan and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011