- 10 -
for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t)(1) with
respect to that amount.
OPINION
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the determina-
tions in the notice are erroneous. See Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
We first consider whether the IRA distributions are in-
cludible in petitioner's gross income for 1995. Petitioner
contends that they are not. In support of that contention,
petitioner argues that
there was gross negligence by the [Family] court and my
ex-wife's lawyer that caused the money to be removed
from the IRA. * * *
* * * * * * *
This was a forced withdrawal. * * *
* * * * * * *
This is a QDRO in substance. 414(p)
1. Payment was made directly to spouse.
2. Recipient (Ex-wife) did not put distribu-
tion in a qualified plan.
3. Ex-wife should be subject to tax for not
putting it in a qualified plan.
4. No liability for petitioner- Section
402(a)(9)(Now section 402(e)(i)(a) state
an exception to this general \ rule. An
alternate payee (who is a wife or former
wife of the plan participant) shall be
treated as the distrubutee of any distri-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011