- 5 -
under section 7701(a)(37). The qualified retirement plan from
which petitioner withdrew the $30,368.86 is a plan described in
section 401(k), and therefore the exceptions contained in section
72(t)(2)(E) and (F), regarding higher education expenses and
first-time home purchases respectively, do not apply.
Petitioner’s 401(k) plan is not an IRA as described by the
exceptions in section 72(t)(2)(E) and (F).
Petitioner’s assertion that he was informed that he could
have transferred the funds from the 401(k) plan to an IRA, that
the funds were left in the 401(k) plan for 2 years without
petitioner’s making any contributions, and that the difference
between a 401(k) plan and an IRA is a matter of form, does not
change the fact that the amount received by petitioner was not a
distribution from an IRA.
We recognize that the differences between a qualified
retirement plan and an IRA are highly technical. To this extent,
we sympathize with petitioner’s confusion. Regarding section
72(t), this Court has repeatedly held that it is bound by the
statutory exceptions enumerated in section 72(t)(2). See, e.g.,
Arnold v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 250, 255-256 (1998); Schoof v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 1, 11 (1998).
Accordingly, respondent’s determination that petitioner is
liable for the 10-percent additional tax is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011