- 9 -
purpose identified in the legislative history for the additional
tax, to wit:
Although the committee recognizes the importance
of encouraging taxpayers to save for retirement, the
committee also believes that tax incentives for
retirement savings are inappropriate unless the savings
generally are not diverted to nonretirement uses. One
way to prevent such diversion is to impose an
additional income tax on early withdrawals from tax-
favored retirement savings arrangements in order to
discourage withdrawals and to recapture a measure of
the tax benefits that have been provided. * * * [S.
Rept. 99-313, supra at 613, 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) at
613; see also H. Rept. 99-426, supra at 727-728, 1986-3
C.B. (Vol. 2) at 728-729.]
In the face of these authorities, petitioners on brief cite
two potential bases in support of their request for relief from
the 10-percent tax. First, petitioners point to language in H.
Conf. Rept. 107-84, at 252-253 (2001), accompanying the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-16,
sec. 644, 115 Stat. 123. This legislation amended sections
402(c)(3) and 408(d)(3) to grant the Secretary authority to waive
the 60-day requirement for rollovers where failure to do so would
be against equity or good conscience. The conference report
cited by petitioners lists various circumstances that Congress
anticipated might qualify for such a waiver, including errors
committed by a financial institution. H. Conf. Rept. 107-84,
supra at 252-253.
However, neither the foregoing legislative changes nor their
underlying history aids petitioners here. Critically, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011