- 8 -
Commissioner, 111 T.C. 250, 255 (1998); Schoof v. Commissioner,
110 T.C. 1, 11 (1998); Clark v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 215, 224-
225 (1993); Swihart v. Commisioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-407; Pulliam
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-354; Roundy v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1995-298, affd. 122 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 1997). The
explicit and detailed inclusion of specific exceptions as part of
the statutory scheme itself suggests that other liberties should
not be indiscriminately inserted through the judicial process.
Cf. Larotonda v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 287 (1987) (interpreting
former section 72(m)(5), a penalty provision without the list now
contained in section 72(t)(2), and largely limited to its facts
by our subsequent holding in Aronson v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 283
(1992)).
This impression is further buttressed by legislative
history. The 10-percent additional tax provision designated
section 72(t) was enacted as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986,
Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 1123, 100 Stat. 2472. Committee reports
accompanying the statute’s passage reflect that the exceptions
given were a deliberate and considered part of the development of
section 72(t). See H. Rept. 99-426, at 727-731 (1985), 1986-3
C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 727-731; S. Rept. 99-313, at 611-617 (1986),
1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 611-617; H. Conf. Rept. 99-841, at II-452
to II-458 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 4) 1, 452-458. Also, any
over-broadening of the grounds for exception could thwart the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011