- 14 -
similarly not authoritative.12
Petitioners also contend that the alleged failure by the
administrator of the Retirement Plan to provide the written
explanation required by section 402(f) is somehow attributable to
respondent and requires respondent to assume the burden of proof.
The short answer to this contention is that we have decided the
issue in dispute without regard to the burden of proof. In any
event, section 402(f) imposes a duty on plan administrators and
not on the Commissioner.13
Petitioners complain that neither the taxable amount of the
Transfer Refund nor the amount of petitioner's previously taxed
contributions has ever been precisely determined. Here we can
12 We observe that the IRS publications and the explications
thereof by the State agency are consistent with our analysis as
set forth above. For example, the agency describes a lump sum
distribution as "the distribution or payment within one tax year
of an employee's entire balance * * * from all of the employer's
qualified pension plans * * *." (Emphasis added.) IRS
Publication 590 describes a lump sum distribution similarly:
"Generally, a lump-sum distribution must include your complete
share * * * in all of your employer's pension plans." (Emphasis
added.)
We also observe that the Transfer Refund is not a lump sum
distribution for internal revenue purposes merely because it may
have been considered to be a "lump sum distribution" for purposes
of the Maryland State Teachers' Retirement System. For internal
revenue purposes, the term "lump sum distribution" is a term of
art and is expressly defined by section 402(e)(4)(A). For
internal revenue purposes, any other definition of the term is
simply irrelevant.
13 Moreover, it does not appear that the Transfer Refund was
even eligible for rollover treatment. See Dorsey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-97; Brown v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-93.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011