- 14 -
After the conclusion of trial, the Court directed the
parties to file seriatim briefs. See Rule 151(b). Petitioners'
opening brief includes 8 pages of proposed findings of fact. See
Rule 151(e)(3). Respondent's answering brief includes 5 pages of
objections to petitioners' proposed findings of fact and 4 pages
of respondent's proposed findings of fact. Id. Petitioners'
reply brief includes 4-� pages of objections to respondent's
proposed findings of fact. Id.
I. The Memorandum Opinion
In T.C. Memo. 1995-492, filed October 11, 1995, the Court
decided the present case. In our memorandum opinion, we rejected
petitioners' argument that petitioner's Transfer Refund had not
been received pursuant to Maryland State law but rather pursuant
to some administrative policy. Regardless, we went on to hold
that the Transfer Refund was received on account of petitioner's
election to transfer from the Retirement System to the Pension
System and not on account of petitioner's retirement. In so
holding, we relied heavily on Hylton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-27, as well as a number of other "Transfer Refund cases"
9(...continued)
Wittstadt to have retired. Because Petitioner's
retirement was a necessary condition precedent to his
participation in the policy distribution option, the
distribution by the Board to Petitioner was made "on
account of" Petitioner Glenn L. Wittstadt's "separation
from service," as those terms are used in I.R.C.
Section 402(a)(5)(D). Consequently, the distribution
to Petitioner qualified for tax free treatment as
provided for in Section 402(a)(5)(D).
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