- 14 -
in his gross income for 1995. We reject that contention. We
have found that those distributions are includible in peti-
tioner's gross income for that year.
As we understand it, petitioner argues in the alternative
that he is not liable for the early withdrawal tax with respect
to the IRA distributions because the Family Court in effect
required him to make those distributions in order to pay the
increased amount awarded to Ms. Czepiel, and he therefore made
those distributions involuntarily. In support of his alternative
position, petitioner relies on Larotonda v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
287 (1987), and Murillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-13,
affd. without published opinion on other issues 166 F.3d 1201 (2d
Cir. 1998). Respondent counters that there are no statutory ex-
ceptions to the early withdrawal tax which apply in the instant
case and that the cases relied on by petitioner are distinguish-
able from the present case and therefore are not controlling
here.
We first address whether there are any statutory exceptions
in section 72(t) to the early withdrawal tax which apply here.
On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to
show that any such statutory exceptions apply so as to preclude
imposition of the early withdrawal tax with respect to the IRA
distributions.
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