Bryan K. Gauthier - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
          retirement plan.  Rather, he contends that the exception to                 
          section 72(t)(1) contained in section 72(t)(2)(B) applies to the            
          distribution from the section 401(k) plan (and by implication to            
          the ESOP distribution if the ESOP was a qualified retirement                
          plan).                                                                      
               Section 72(t)(2)(B) provides for an exception to the                   
          additional tax for:                                                         
               Distributions made to the employee * * * to the extent such            
               distributions do not exceed the amount allowable as a                  
               deduction under section 213 to the employee for amounts paid           
               during the taxable year for medical care (determined without           
               regard to whether the employee itemizes deductions for such            
               taxable year).                                                         
          Petitioner contends that he withdrew the funds because he needed            
          and used the money to pay his mother’s medical bills.  Petitioner           
          has not substantiated that he paid any of his mother’s medical              
          bills.  But, even if he had, the exception contained in section             
          72(t)(2)(B) applies to payments that would be deductible under              
          section 213.  Section 213(a) allows deductions for medical                  
          expenses paid for “the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent (as             
          defined in section 152)”.  While petitioner’s mother could have             
          been his dependent, see sec. 152(a)(4), in order for her to                 
          qualify as his dependent, petitioner would have had to provide              
          over half of her support, sec. 152(a).  We note that not only is            
          the record totally devoid of any evidence to support this                   
          conclusion, but also petitioner did not claim his mother as a               
          dependent on his 1998 return.  We conclude that the section                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011