- 6 -
illness was so severe that she was unable to go to work in 2004
and most of 2005. Indeed, Ms. Warrington’s testimony established
that she and her family suffered financially from her inability
to leave the house and make a living during that period.
However, Ms. Warrington’s testimony and the parties’ stipulations
show that Ms. Warrington’s doctor told her and wrote in his notes
on December 20, 2005, that he believed she would be able to
return to work. Ms. Warrington was employed during part of 2005
and at the time of trial.
Notwithstanding the apparent severity of Ms. Warrington’s
illness in 2004, the evidence does not support a conclusion that
her illness fell within the definition of “disabled” as
contemplated by section 72(t) and (m)(7) or the regulations
thereunder. Ms. Warrington resumed work in 2005 and is now able
to engage in an activity comparable to the one in which she
engaged prior to her illness. Accordingly, Ms. Warrington fails
to meet the regulatory requirement that an individual be so
impaired as to be unable to engage in a “substantial gainful
activity”, in order to be exempted from the 10-percent additional
tax. Sec. 1.72-17A(f)(1), (4), Income Tax Regs. Unfortunately
for petitioners, it is not whether their family was in need of
Ms. Warrington’s retirement money due to Ms. Warrington’s
illness; the question is whether a taxpayer fits within the
technical parameters of a particular law. In this situation,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007