- 6 -
Petitioner also does not contend that he satisfies any of
the specific exceptions set forth in section 72(t)(2). Rather,
petitioner contends that the 10-percent additional tax should not
apply because of financial hardship. However, we have expressly
held that financial hardship is not an exception to the
additional tax imposed by section 72(t). E.g., Arnold v.
Commissioner, 111 T.C. 250, 255 (1998); Milner v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2004-111; Gallagher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-34.
We recognize that petitioner received his IRA distribution
at a time when he was both a single parent and temporarily
unemployed and that he used the distribution for a laudable
purpose. Unfortunately for petitioner, we are bound by the list
of statutory exceptions set forth in section 72(t)(2). Schoof v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 1, 11 (1998); Clark v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 215, 224-225 (1993); Swihart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-407. Thus, although we may be sympathetic to petitioner’s
position, we are constrained to sustain respondent’s
determination on this issue.
Finally, the fact that respondent only determined the 10-
percent additional tax sometime after making a mechanical
adjustment to petitioner’s return upon its initial processing is
of no moment.8 The fact of the matter is that respondent sent
8 See sec. 68, imposing an overall limitation on itemized
deductions, and sec. 6213(b)(1), permitting summary assessments
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007