- 7 -
(Vol. 3) 1, 612-613. Petitioner failed to prove to the Court
that the omission in the statute of an exemption from the
additional tax under section 72(t) for financial hardships, as
opposed to those resulting from death or disability, was not
reasonable and, therefore, that the statute was not
constitutional. Whether Congress' distinction between financial
hardships and those caused by death or disability is a wise one
for policy, as opposed to constitutional, reasons is a matter for
petitioner to argue to Congress and not to this Court.
Finally, petitioner argues generally that section 72(t) is
contrary to public policy and is inequitable. The Tax Court is a
court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers.
Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Hays Corp. v.
Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir.
1964); see sec. 7442. The Court has no authority to disregard
the express provisions of statutes adopted by Congress, even
where the result in a particular case seems harsh. See, e.g.,
Estate of Cowser v. Commissioner, 736 F.2d 1168, 1171-1174 (7th
Cir. 1984), affg. 80 T.C. 783, 787-788 (1983).
In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that petitioner is
liable for the 10-percent additional tax imposed by section
72(t). While the Court sympathizes with petitioner's financial
situation, the Court notes that petitioner's participation in the
two retirement plans was voluntary. The decision to participate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011