- 6 -
that petitioner would have us construe in his favor. Section
402(a)(5)(B) provides in pertinent part:
(B) Maximum amount which may be rolled over.--In
the case of any qualified total distribution, the
maximum amount transferred to which subparagraph (A)
applies shall not exceed the fair market value of all
the property the employee receives in the distribution,
reduced by the employee contributions (other than
accumulated deductible employee contributions within
the meaning of section 72(o)(5)). In the case of any
partial distribution, the maximum amount transferred to
which subparagraph (A) applies shall not exceed the
portion of such distribution which is includible in
gross income (determined without regard to subparagraph
(A)).
The term “qualified total distribution” is defined in section
402(a)(5)(E)(i)(II) to include “1 or more distributions * * *
which constitute a lump sum distribution within the meaning of
subsection (e)(4)(A)”. In pertinent part, section 402(e)(4)(A)
defines a “lump sum distribution” to mean “the distribution or
payment within one taxable year of the recipient of the balance
to the credit of an employee which becomes payable to the
recipient * * * on account of the employee’s separation from
* * * service”.
3. Petitioner’s Argument
Petitioner argues that, because in 1992 he did not receive
the contract amounts, the 1992 distribution did not constitute
the balance to the credit payable to him on account of his
separation from service and, thus, was not a completed lump-sum
distribution within the meaning of section 402(e)(4)(A).
Petitioner further argues that the 1992 distribution constituted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011