- 22 -
legislation itself. In enacting and amending the IRA provisions
in 1974 and 1986, respectively, it is clear that Congress
intended to encourage retirement savings and the retention of
those savings for retirement use. If denied favorable tax
treatment in this situation, petitioners will face retirement
without a large portion of petitioner's retirement savings, thus
creating the very situation that Congress sought to avoid by
enacting the IRA provisions in the first place. See Adler v.
Commissioner, 86 F.3d 378, 381 (4th Cir. 1996), vacating and
remanding T.C. Memo. 1995-148.
Finally, petitioners contend that respondent's
interpretation of section 72(e)(6) should be resisted because
otherwise it would lead to petitioner's retirement distribution's
being taxed twice. We think petitioners' contention is
meritorious. Here we take note of the long-standing principle
that double taxation is to be avoided unless expressly intended
by Congress. E.g., Maass v. Higgins, 312 U.S. 443, 449 (1941);
United States v. Supplee-Biddle Hardware Co., 265 U.S. 189, 195-
196 (1924); Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 129, 137 (1886);
Verkouteren v. District of Columbia, 433 F.2d 461, 469 (D.C. Cir.
1970). Nothing in section 72(e)(6) suggests that petitioner's
retirement distribution should be taxed twice. As previously
discussed, such intent is also conspicuously absent in the
pertinent legislative history.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011