Louis R. and Gregoria S. Gomez - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          Thus, the lump-sum distribution is an accelerated distribution of           
          annuity payments that would otherwise be paid to the retiree over           
          the expected duration of the CSRS annuity.  Montgomery v. United            
          States, 18 F.3d 500, 502 (7th Cir. 1994); George v. United                  
          States, 30 Fed. Cl. 371, 377 (1994); Shimota v. United States,              
          supra at 522.                                                               
               The distributions that petitioner received from the CSRS are           
          subject to taxation under section 72 pursuant to section 402(a).            
          Section 72 is applicable to distributions received pursuant to              
          the CSRS.  Malbon v. United States, supra at 468; Guilzon v.                
          Commissioner, 97 T.C. 237, 242 (1991), affd. 985 F.2d 819 (5th              
          Cir. 1993); Shimota v. United States, supra at 519-520; sec.                
          1.72-2(a)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs.  Section 402(a) provides:               
               the amount actually distributed to any distributee by                  
               any employees’ trust described in section 401(a) which                 
               is exempt from tax under section 501(a) shall be                       
               taxable to him, in the year in which so distributed,                   
               under section 72 (relating to annuities).  * * *                       
          The CSRS is a plan that meets the requirements of section 401(a).           
          Guilzon v. Commissioner, supra at 241; Shimota v. United States,            
          supra at 519-520.  A lump-sum payment from the CSRS is a payment            
          from a plan described in section 401(a) and is treated as a                 
          payment under an annuity contract and is subject to tax under               
          section 72(e)(2).  Guilzon v. Commissioner, supra at 242-243;               
          Shimota v. United States, supra at 523.                                     
               Petitioners’ argument that double taxation will occur is               
          without merit.  Petitioner will recover his investment in the               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011