Boyer v. Commissioner
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KORNER,
This case was submitted for decision on fully stipulated facts pursuant to Rule 122. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioners resided in Columbus, Ohio, when they filed their petition herein. They filed a joint Federal income tax return for calendar year 1984.
Petitioner was employed by Viking Party Sales, Inc. on June 30, 1976, and became a participant in its profit sharing plan on June 30, 1979. He received a distribution of the balance of his profit sharing account on September 21, 1984, after having left the service of Viking Party Sales, Inc. Petitioners reported the distribution on their 1984 joint Federal income tax return and used the 10-year averaging method*250 provided by section 402(e)(1) to compute their tax liability on it. Respondent audited the return and determined that petitioners were not entitled to use the 10-year averaging method to compute their tax liability on the distribution as petitioner was not a participant in the profit sharing plan for at least five taxable years before 1984.
Distributions qualify to be taxed under the provisions of section 402(e)(1) only if they are "lump sum" distributions. Sec. 402(e)(1)(A). A distribution qualifies as a "lump sum" distribution only if, among other things, the person receiving it was a participant in the plan "for 5 or more taxable years before the taxable year in which such amounts are distributed." Sec. 402(e)(4)(H). Respondent argues that petitioner was not a participant in the plan maintained by Viking Party Sales, Inc. for 1979, and therefore was not a participant in the plan for five taxable years before 1984. We disagree.
Section 1.402(f)-1T(b), Temp. Income Tax Regs.,
*252 To reflect the foregoing,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1988 T.C. Memo. 220 (Boyer v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.