- 3 -
determined a $1,779 deficiency in petitioners’ 2003 Federal
income tax,4 and on September 12, 2005, respondent issued a
notice of deficiency to petitioners.
On December 12, 2005, petitioners filed their petition.
Petitioners argue that their 2003 overpayment should have been
applied to cover the $1,779 deficiency that resulted from the
additional tax required by section 72(t)(1).5 Petitioners’ case
was set for trial at the Court’s February 5, 2007, Los Angeles,
California, trial session. On February 5, 2007, petitioners
failed to make an appearance, and respondent submitted a motion
to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Petitioner Gary Madden,
however, appeared before the Court on February 6, 2007, and we
set petitioners’ case for recall.6 On February 8, 2007, we
denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and
conducted a trial.
3(...continued)
lists the circumstances in which a taxpayer is permitted to
receive distributions from his or her qualified retirement plan
without incurring the 10-percent additional tax mandated by sec.
72(t)(1).
4 The $1,779 deficiency calculated by respondent is 10
percent of $17,786.51, the amount of the distribution from
petitioners’ retirement plan includable in gross income.
5 Petitioners concede that they are liable for the $1,779
deficiency under sec. 72(t).
6 Petitioners mistakenly believed their case was calendared
for Feb. 6, 2007.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007