- 5 - (3) on account of the employee’s disability; (4) as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments made for life; (5) to an employee after separation from service after attainment of age 55; (6) as dividends paid with respect to corporate stock described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Petitioners contend they do not owe the section 72(t) additional tax for four reasons: (1) The divorce settlement in 2000 caused financial and emotional hardship. (2) Mr. Ahmad suffers from fibromyalgia (a rheumatic condition) and chronic fatigue syndrome. (3) Mr. Ahmad was enrolled as a student at the University of Toledo in 2001. (4) The divorce court considered Mr. Ahmad’s PERS pension as marital property and subject to division. As to the first argument, petitioners contend that they are not liable for the 10-percent addition to tax because Mr. Ahmad experienced financial and emotional hardship due to the Court of Common Pleas’ ignoring his new wife and child in its order. This Court has repeatedly held that we are bound by the specific restrictions contained in section 72(t)(2). See, e.g., Clark v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 215, 224-225 (1993); Vorwald v.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011