Charlotte Marie Scott - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
               After petitioner was dismissed from employment at Robicon at           
          the end of October 1999, she claims she received unemployment               
          benefits for the remainder of 1999.  However, petitioner also               
          testified that she was “sporadically” employed between January              
          and April 2000.  Petitioner stated that she requested her 401(k)            
          qualified retirement plan distribution in January 2000.                     
          Therefore, even if section 72(t)(2)(D) did apply to such                    
          distribution, based upon the record, this Court is unable to find           
          that petitioner received unemployment compensation for 12                   
          consecutive weeks in the year of the distribution or the                    
          preceding year as required by section 72(t)(2)(D)(i)(I).                    
               Petitioner has not substantiated receiving unemployment                
          compensation for 12 consecutive weeks in the year of the                    
          distribution from her IRA or the preceding year.  Id.  Therefore,           
          she has not fulfilled the requirements of section 72(t)(2)(D)               
          with respect to her IRA, which would have enabled her to receive            
          a portion of her IRA distribution without paying the 10-percent             
          additional tax.3  We conclude that petitioner is not entitled to            
          an exception under section 72(t)(2)(D) from the 10-percent                  
          additional tax imposed by section 72(t).  See sec. 72(t)(2)(D).             

          3We note that even if petitioner had satisfied the                          
          requirements of sec. 72(t)(2)(D), the sec. 72(t)(2)(D) exception            
          would have applied only to $7,723.60 of the $11,168 distribution,           
          which was the amount substantiated as used to pay for health                
          insurance premiums from January to October 2000, due to the fact            
          that petitioner’s insurance was canceled retroactively to                   
          November 2000 for nonpayment.                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011