- 4 -
Petitioners have not explicitly claimed that they should be
entitled to a section 31 credit for amounts employer purportedly
withheld on Mr. Ackerman’s plan distribution but failed to
report. But even if we were to construe petitioners’ claims
broadly to encompass such an argument, it would be an argument
that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider. The Court’s
jurisdiction in this case is limited to redetermining
petitioners’ deficiency, see sec. 6213(a), which the statute
requires to be determined “without regard to the credit under
section 31". Sec. 6211(b)(1); see Redcay v. Commissioner, 12
T.C. 806, 809-810 (1949); Porter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-475; Joy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-543.
Petitioners do not dispute that Mr. Ackerman received at
least a $211,916 plan distribution in 2001.2 Accordingly, we
sustain respondent’s determination.
Petitioners contend alternatively that if employer neglected
to withhold Federal income tax on the plan distribution, then
only employer is liable for the tax. For the reasons discussed
above, petitioners remain obligated to report their items of
gross income, notwithstanding employer’s payment or nonpayment of
withholding taxes thereon. See Goins v. Commissioner, supra.
2 In fact, the import of petitioners’ argument seems to be
that $211,916 was the net plan distribution, after withheld
taxes, and that the gross plan distribution was considerably
higher. Respondent has not asserted any increased deficiency to
reflect any such higher amount of a gross plan distribution.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011