Glen L. Wittstadt, Jr. and Lynne M. Wittstadt - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                          
          Transfer Refund) that was received by petitioner from the                    
          Maryland State Teachers' Retirement System (the Retirement                   
          System) did not qualify for tax-free rollover treatment under                
          section 402(a)(5).  In turn, this determination was premised on              
          respondent's ultimate determination that the Transfer Refund was             
          not made "on account of" petitioner's separation from the service            
          of the Baltimore County Public Schools; i.e., petitioner's                   
          retirement as a teacher, but rather was made "on account of"                 
          petitioner's election to transfer from the Retirement System to              
          the Maryland State Teachers' Pension System (the Pension System).            
               B. The Parties' Pleadings                                               
               On April 9, 1993, petitioners filed a timely petition (the              
          Petition) in which they contested the deficiencies determined by             
          respondent.  In the Petition, which they filed pro se,                       
          petitioners alleged, in part, as follows:                                    
                    The issue in this case was whether my [Transfer                    
               Refund] distribution met the IRS requirements for a tax                 
               free roll-over or not * * * .                                           
                    The December 4, 1992 final appeal decision letter                  
               from the local IRS Appeals Division states that [the                    
               Transfer Refund] did not [qualify for tax-free rollover                 
               treatment] because the distribution WAS NOT received                    
               because of "Separation from the job" (retirement) as                    
               required; but because I signed an "election form to                     
               transfer participation from the old ... retirement fund                 
               to the new ... retirement fund".                                        
                            *   *   *   *   *   *   *                                  
                    Following the June 30, 1989 separation                             
               [petitioner's final day of employment] the State had                    
               only one, single, required course of action, namely to                  
               make the distribution to me on or after July 1, 1989,                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011