- 16 -
financial crimes. In a related civil proceeding, a decree of
forfeiture was issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 981 (1994),
which required the taxpayer to forfeit his funds on deposit in a
variety of accounts, including certain IRA's. See id. Although
the taxpayer included the funds forfeited from his IRA's as gross
income in his tax return, he did not report in that return that
he was liable for the early withdrawal tax with respect to those
funds. See id. We held on the record presented to us in Murillo
that Larotonda v. Commissioner, supra, was controlling. We
indicated in Murillo that
the decree of forfeiture not only triggered but was
itself the event which constituted the IRA withdrawals.
* * * Moreover, * * * petitioner herein neither re-
ceived nor had control of the use of the IRA distribu-
tions. * * *
Id. Consequently, we held in Murillo that the taxpayer was not
liable for the early withdrawal tax. See id.
In Larotonda v. Commissioner, supra, the Commissioner's levy
triggered the taxable event without any active participation by
the taxpayer, and we were concerned that Congress did not intend
the additional tax under former section 72(m)(5) to apply to such
a situation. In Murillo v. Commissioner, supra, the decree of
forfeiture that forfeited to the United States, inter alia, the
taxpayer's IRA accounts "not only triggered but was itself the
event which constituted the IRA withdrawals." In contrast, in
the present case, the IRA distributions were not made without any
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