- 17 -
the Court stated that "'the balance to the credit of an employee'
was intended to include all sums payable to the employee and that
there should be no separation of accounts for this purpose."
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 she transferred from the Retirement
System to the Pension System. Accordingly, petitioners are not
entitled to the increased threshold amount; i.e. $750,000, set
forth in section 4980A(c)(4) in determining the amount of
petitioner's excess distributions for purposes of the excise tax
under section 4980A.
We now turn to petitioners' alternative argument.
Petitioners contend that the Retirement System is not a
"qualified employer plan" under section 4980A(e)(2) because it
provides for the distribution of employee contributions and
earnings thereon prior to a participant's retirement. Thus,
petitioners argue that there were no "retirement distributions"
under section 4980A(e)(1) and therefore no "excess distributions"
for purposes of section 4980A(a).
We have previously considered and rejected petitioners'
alternative contention in Montgomery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-263. We see no need to revisit the issue. Therefore, for
the reasons stated in Montgomery v. Commissioner, supra, we hold
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