Harold L. and Gladys M. Humberson - Page 14

                                       - 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            
               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