Beverly Johnson - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal             
          income tax of $4,899.40 for 2003.  The issue for decision is                
          whether petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax on           
          an early distribution under section 72(t).                                  
                                     Background                                       
               The stipulated facts and the exhibits received into evidence           
          are incorporated herein by reference.  At the time the petition             
          in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Los Angeles,                  
          California.                                                                 
               In 2003, petitioner was employed by Comcast of California as           
          a customer service representative.  Petitioner began a leave of             
          absence from Comcast on June 3, 2003.  Petitioner filed a claim             
          for disability insurance benefits with California’s Employment              
          Development Department (department) on grounds of acute                     
          depression.  The claim was approved effective as of June 3, 2003,           
          and petitioner thereafter received disability insurance benefits            
          from June 3, 2003, to February 28, 2004.                                    
               On January 20, 2004, at the department’s request, petitioner           
          appeared for an examination with a psychiatrist chosen by the               
          department.  The psychiatrist opined in his written report that             
          petitioner should be able to return to her regular work beginning           
          January 20, 2004.  On the basis of the report, the department               
          determined that petitioner was no longer eligible for disability            
          insurance benefits.  The department’s determination was upheld by           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011