- 11 -
concluded that they were not liable for the 10-percent additional
tax".
We think that the instant case falls within Larotonda.
Here, the decree of forfeiture not only triggered but was itself
the event which constituted the IRA withdrawals. In this
context, the presence of an obligation on the part of the
taxpayer is less clearly defined in the case of a forfeiture than
when there is a levy to satisfy a previously determined tax
liability. Moreover, unlike the taxpayer in Aronson, petitioner
herein neither received nor had control of the use of the IRA
distributions. We are not persuaded by respondent's argument
that the instant situation falls within the ambit of Aronson
because, by virtue of the plea agreement, his consent to the
forfeiture, and his avoidance of a fine or potentially longer
prison sentence, petitioner should be treated as having
voluntarily made a premature withdrawal and therefore should be
liable for the 10-percent addition to tax under section 72(t).
We do not believe the circumstances surrounding the plea
agreement were such as to impart a "voluntary" patina to the IRA
withdrawals. In the final analysis, petitioner had no realistic
choice. See Waldman v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1384, 1389 (1987),
affd. in a published order 850 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1988), where a
plea agreement did not avoid characterization of a payment as a
fine or penalty.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011