Allan R. Powell and Joan K. Powell - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined a                   
          deficiency in petitioners' excise tax under section 4980A in the            
          amount of $45,991.5  In an amended petition, petitioners claimed            
          an overpayment of income tax by electing to use the 10-year                 
          forward averaging provisions under section 402(e)(1).  Respondent           
          contends that petitioners do not qualify for 10-year forward                
          averaging because the Transfer Refund did not constitute a "lump            
          sum distribution" within the meaning of section 402(e)(4)(A).               
                                       OPINION                                        
               The primary issue for decision is whether petitioner Allan             
          R. Powell is liable for the 15-percent excise tax under section             
          4980A for 1990.  As previously noted, the resolution of this                
          issue turns on whether the Transfer Refund was paid from a                  
          qualified employer plan within the meaning of section                       
          4980A(e)(2).                                                                
               Section 4980A imposes a 15-percent excise tax on excess                
          distributions from qualified retirement plans.  Sec. 4980A(a).              
          As relevant herein, an "excess distribution" is defined as the              
          aggregate amount of "retirement distributions" with respect to              
          any individual during any calendar year to the extent that such             
          amount exceeds $150,000.  Sec. 4980A(c)(1).  The definition of an           
          excess distribution is modified, however, for a "lump sum                   


          5 See supra note 4 regarding respondent's concession; see                   
          supra note 2 regarding respondent's mischaracterization of                  
          petitioners' excise tax deficiency.                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011