- 4 -
Petitioner contends that she should not be subject to the
10-percent additional tax, because she has a “qualifying
hardship”. While it is evident that petitioner took the
distribution because of financial hardship, and the Court
sympathizes with her, there is, however, no hardship exception
under section 72(t)(2). This principle has been applied
consistently in cases dealing with premature retirement
distributions. See Arnold v. Commissioner, supra at 255 (holding
that premature distribution received as a result of financial
hardship was subject to section 72(t) additional tax, because no
exception exists for financial hardship); Milner v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2004-111 (same); Gallagher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-34 (holding that premature distribution received by
taxpayers due to financial hardship and used to pay bills,
tuition at their son’s private high school, and other personal
expenses was subject to section 72(t) additional tax); Robertson
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-100, affd. 15 Fed. Appx. 467
(4th Cir. 2001) (holding that premature distribution used for the
taxpayer’s “own subsistence and that of her family” was subject
to section 72(t) additional tax); Pulliam v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-354 (holding that premature distribution received by
taxpayer due to financial hardship and used to pay off his debts
was subject to section 72(t) additional tax). Thus, the
distribution received by petitioner is subject to the 10-percent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011