- 5 -
[possessed].” United States v. Natl. Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S.
713, 725 (1985).
Petitioners do not claim that petitioner-husband, against
whom the assessment had been made, had no interest in the account
levied upon, and it is not disputed that petitioner-husband could
have withdrawn the funds. If petitioner-wife had cognizable
interest in the property levied upon, her remedy was to bring an
action in the district court against the United States pursuant
to section 7426(a). See id. at 728. But, she cannot claim here
that the distribution arising from the compliance with the levy
by Dean Witter should be deemed void.
2. Adjustments to Petitioners’ Modified Adjusted Gross Income for
EIC Purposes
Section 32(a)(1) provides a credit based upon a taxpayer’s
earned income, commonly referred to as an EIC. Section
32(a)(2)(B) provides that the credit shall not exceed “the
phaseout percentage of so much of the modified adjusted gross
income (or, if greater, the earned income) of the taxpayer * * *
as exceeds the phaseout amount.” It is not contested that, if
the income from the IRA distribution is included in petitioners’
MAGI, respondent’s adjustment to the credit is correct.
Section 62(a) provides that adjusted gross income means
gross income less certain deductions. These deductions do not
include deductions for IRA distributions. Section 32(c)(5)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011