Harold E. Emmons and Anna Mae Emmons - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          Opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.               
                         OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE                           
               ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:  Respondent determined a                   
          deficiency in petitioners' Federal excise tax under section 4980A           
          for the taxable year 1991 in the amount of $35,308.2                        
               After a concession by respondent,3 the only issue for                  
          decision is whether the Transfer Refund distribution received by            
          petitioner Anna Mae Emmons in 1991 from the Maryland State                  
          Employees' Retirement System is subject to the 15-percent excise            
          tax under section 4980A as an excess distribution from a                    
          qualified plan.  The resolution of this issue turns on whether              
          the Transfer Refund was paid from a defined benefit plan, as                
          respondent contends, or from a defined contribution component of            
          a defined benefit plan described in section 414(k), as                      
          petitioners contend.                                                        
               This case was submitted fully stipulated under Rule 122, and           
          the facts stipulated are so found.  Petitioners resided in                  
          Frederick, Maryland, at the time that their petition was filed              
          with the Court.                                                             

          Practice and Procedure.                                                     
          2 Sec. 4980A imposes a 15-percent excise tax on excess                      
          distributions from qualified retirement plans.  This tax is                 
          included within ch. 43 of the I.R.C. and is subject to the                  
          deficiency procedures set forth in subch. B of ch. 63 of the                
          I.R.C.  See sec. 6211(a).                                                   
          3 Respondent concedes that petitioner Harold E. Emmons is                   
          not liable for the deficiency in issue herein.  See also infra              
          note 6.                                                                     



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011