- 13 - In closing, we note that in a case decided earlier this year, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland reached the same conclusion in respect of the lump sum distribution issue that this Court has reached. Sites v. United States, 75 AFTR 2d 95-2504, 95-1 USTC par. 50,280 (D. Md. 1995). The final paragraph of the District Court's analysis deserves to be quoted as follows: The Court believes that the statutory analysis and reasoning of Hoppe [v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994- 635] is sound. Because the Retirement System and Pension System were both maintained by Taxpayer's employer, the State of Maryland, they are to be aggregated for purposes of determining the "balance to the credit" of an employee under section 402(e)(4)(A). Whereas Taxpayer received a refund of his contributions and the accumulated interest, his service credits were transferred to and remained within the Pension System. By choosing to transfer to the Pension System, * * * [Taxpayer] opted * * * to receive a refund of his contributions and accumulated interest along with reduced annuity payments in the future. Thus, in effect, Taxpayer elected to receive the "balance to the credit" of his account in two-parts: the refund payment and the future annuity payments. Consequently, he did not receive the "balance to the credit" of his account on * * * [the Transfer Refund date]. Id. [75 AFTR 2d 95-2504, at 95-2507, 95-1 USTC par. 50,280, at 88,031]. In order to give effect to our disposition of the disputed issue, the parties' concessions, and the parties' stipulation referenced in supra notes 4 and 7,10 10 It would appear that such stipulation would also affect the amount of the excise tax under sec. 4980A. We leave this matter to the parties as part of the Rule 155 computation.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011