Brent Allan Pulliam - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

               of the portion of such amount which is includible in gross             
               income.                                                                

          The parties do not dispute that petitioner's SEP and Keogh plans            
          are qualified retirement plans under section 4974(c).  The 10-              
          percent additional tax, however, does not apply to certain                  
          distributions.  Section 72(t)(2) exempts distributions from the             
          additional tax if the distributions are made:  (1) To an employee           
          age 59-1/2 or older; (2) to a beneficiary (or to the estate of              
          the employee) on or after the death of the employee; (3) on                 
          account of disability; (4) as part of a series of substantially             
          equal periodic payments made for life; (5) to an employee after             
          separation from service after attainment of age 55; (6) as                  
          dividends paid with respect to corporate stock described in                 
          section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an           
          alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order.           
               Petitioner concedes that none of the described section                 
          72(t)(2) exemptions apply in his case.  Petitioner contends,                
          however, that, due to his financial hardship, the distributions             
          should be exempt from section 72(t), and that, in not allowing a            
          financial hardship exemption, section 72(t) is contrary to public           
          policy and violates his constitutional right to equal protection.           
          Petitioner also relies heavily on the case of In re Cassidy, 983            
          F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1992).                                                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011