- 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