- 6 - supra note 5.7 See Grow v. Commissioner, supra; Harris v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-22. Therefore, we have no basis to conclude that petitioner rolled over his MIC Plan distribution to an eligible retirement plan so as to avoid the 10-percent additional tax imposed by section 72(t). As previously stated, petitioner “[disagrees] with the laws that disallow real estate investing as an acceptable retirement plan in which to roll over ‘pension’ funds.” However, petitioner should understand that absent some constitutional defect, we are constrained to apply the law as written, see Estate of Cowser v. Commissioner, 736 F.2d 1168, 1171-1174 (7th Cir. 1984), affg. 80 T.C. 783, 787-788 (1983), and that we may not rewrite the law because we may “deem its effects susceptible of improvement”, Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235, 252 (1996) (quoting Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 398 (1984)). Accordingly, petitioner’s appeal for relief must, in this instance, be addressed to his elected representatives. “The proper place for a consideration of petitioner’s complaint is the halls of Congress, not here.” Hays Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436, 443 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964). In view of the foregoing, we sustain respondent’s determination on the disputed issue. 7 Such an investment also does not satisfy the tax-free rollover provisions of sec. 402(c)(5) and, therefore, is not a tax-free rollover contribution. Cf. sec. 408(d)(3).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011