- 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