1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4 | Tax Ct. | 1999
1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" label="1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" no-link"="" number="1" pagescheme="<span class=">1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*4 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" label="1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" no-link"="" number="2" pagescheme="<span class=">1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*5 GOLDBERG, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: This case was heard pursuant to
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax in the amount of $ 1,451 for the 1993 tax year.
The issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for a 10 percent additional tax under
1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" label="1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" no-link"="" number="4" pagescheme="<span class=">1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*7 Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Sunnyvale, California.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In 1993, petitioner was employed as a mechanical designer by Press Specialties Manufacturing Company, Inc. in Portland, Oregon, and later that same year, in the same capacity, by World Auxiliary Power in Oakland, California. Petitioner had initially moved from California to Oregon to be near his daughter. Petitioner's ex-wife and daughter had earlier moved to Oregon from California, and petitioner had followed in an attempt to enforce visitation rights granted to him1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" label="1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" no-link"="" number="5" pagescheme="<span class=">1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*8 in a 1978 Interlocutory Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered by a California court.
Petitioner became frustrated in his unsuccessful attempts to enforce the California court order in Oregon. Petitioner later "fled" Oregon because he believed there had been two attempts on his life by "government employees of the State of Oregon". Petitioner withdrew funds from his IRA and bank accounts in Oregon and moved back to California. Petitioner, who was born on March 10, 1947, was 46 years of age in 1993 when the withdrawals were made.
Petitioner filed a 1993 Federal income tax return and calculated his Federal income tax to be $ 6,262. Petitioner had $ 2,090 in Federal income tax withheld and computed his remaining Federal income tax liability to be $ 4,172.
Petitioner reported a distribution from his IRA in the amount of $ 14,505.08 on his 1993 Federal income tax return, but did not pay a 10-percent additional tax on that distribution.
In a notice of deficiency dated January 31, 1997, respondent determined a deficiency in the amount of $ 1,451. This amount represented a 10-percent additional tax on IRA distributions pursuant to
OPINION
1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" label="1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" no-link"="" number="6" pagescheme="<span class=">1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*9 Under
Petitioner's IRA was a qualified retirement plan. Petitioner did not roll over his IRA distribution and does not claim to fit within any of the statutory exceptions of
In his petition to this Court, petitioner contested the amount of the deficiency and all "unlawful fines and/or penalties." Petitioner contends that in a separate action the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) levied upon1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" label="1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4" no-link"="" number="8" pagescheme="<span class=">1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*11 petitioner's bank account because petitioner failed to pay his 1993 Federal income tax liability of $ 4,172 as shown on his return. At that time, the IRS apparently determined a "fine" or "penalty" in regard to the $ 4,172 amount.
In contesting all "unlawful fines and/or penalties" in his petition to this Court, petitioner is inviting this Court to consider all of the 1993 "fines and/or penalties" determined by the IRS. We decline to do so.
Petitioner has not contested on any specific ground respondent's determination that he is liable for a 10-percent additional tax on his 1993 IRA distribution. Since petitioner fails to qualify for any of the statutory exceptions under
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
Footnotes
1. This provision, codified at
sec. 72(t)(2)(A)(v) , is not applicable to premature IRA distributions.Sec. 72(t)(3)(A)↩ .