- 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