5
Petitioner’s IRA’s were qualified retirement plans.
Petitioner did not roll over his IRA distributions and does not
claim to fit within any of the statutory exceptions of section
72(t)(2). Petitioner testified that he was made aware at
meetings provided by Aetna regarding his IRA accounts that there
may be a tax because “you always have to pay taxes on something.”
Petitioner would have us consider his actions in light of his
recent legal difficulties in the Washington State courts.
Petitioner has not contested on any specific ground
respondent’s determination that he is liable for a 10-percent
additional tax on his 1996 IRA distributions. Since petitioner
fails to qualify for any of the statutory exceptions under
section 72(t)(2), we hold that petitioner is liable for the
10-percent additional tax on distributions from a qualified
retirement plan for 1996 as provided in section 72(t)(1).
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011