- 12 -
of an election and not as a result of any voluntary separation."
The distinction that petitioners draw, however, represents a
distinction without a difference because the fact that
petitioners rely on so heavily is simply not relevant to the
controlling law, i.e., the aggregation provisions of section
402(e)(4)(C).
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Transfer Refund
did not constitute a lump-sum distribution within the meaning of
section 402(e)(4)(A) because petitioner did not receive the
"balance to the credit" when he transferred from the Retirement
System to the Pension System. Accordingly, the Transfer Refund
received by petitioner does not qualify for forward averaging
under section 402(e)(1). See Hamilton v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-633 (addressing whether a taxpayer had received the
"balance to the credit" in the context of whether the taxpayer
was entitled to compute tax on a transfer refund using the 10-
year forward averaging method set forth in section 402(e)(1));
Hoppe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-635 (same); see also
Dorsey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-97 (addressing whether a
taxpayer had received the "balance to the credit" in the context
of whether a Transfer Refund distribution qualified for tax-free
rollover treatment under section 402(a)(5); Brown v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-93 (same); cf. supra with T.C.
Memo. 1993-561.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011