- 10 -
IRA is highly technical, and we applaud petitioners for their
efforts in researching the tax consequences of receiving a 401(k)
plan distribution. The Tax Court, however, is a court of limited
jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers. Commissioner v.
McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Hays Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C.
436, 442-443 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964).
Consequently, our jurisdiction to grant equitable relief is
limited. Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 784-787 (1989);
Estate of Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1014, 1017-1018
(1980). Although we acknowledge that petitioners used the 401(k)
plan distribution for a laudable purpose, absent some
constitutional defect, we are constrained to apply the law as
written, see Estate of Cowser v. Commissioner, 736 F.2d 1168,
1171-1174 (7th Cir. 1984), affg. 80 T.C. 783, 787-788 (1983), and
we may not rewrite the law because we may “‘deem its effects
susceptible of improvement’”, Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S.
235, 252 (1996) (quoting Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386,
398 (1984)). Accordingly, petitioners’ appeal for relief must,
in this instance, be addressed to their elected representatives.
“The proper place for a consideration of petitioner’s complaint
is the halls of Congress, not here.” Hays Corp. v. Commissioner,
supra at 443.
Therefore, we conclude that Mrs. Domanico’s 401(k) plan
distribution is subject to the additional tax under section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011