Duncan v. Comm'r

2005 T.C. Memo. 171, 90 T.C.M. 35, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171, 36 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1546
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 12, 2005
DocketNo. 329-04
StatusUnpublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 2005 T.C. Memo. 171 (Duncan v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duncan v. Comm'r, 2005 T.C. Memo. 171, 90 T.C.M. 35, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171, 36 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1546 (tax 2005).

Opinion

SYLVIA A. DUNCAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Duncan v. Comm'r
No. 329-04
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2005-171; 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171; 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 35; 36 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1546;
July 12, 2005, Filed
*171 Sylvia A. Duncan, pro se.
Daniel N. Price, for respondent.
Cohen, Mary Ann

MARY ANN COHEN

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 2,251 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2001. The issues for decision are:

(1) Whether the unpaid balance of a loan taken by petitioner from her qualified retirement plan in 2000 should be deemed a taxable distribution to petitioner in 2001 that is subject to the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t) and, if so,

(2) whether petitioner's medical expenses incurred in 2000 and 2001 can be applied to reduce the taxable amount of the distribution.

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. Petitioner resided in San Antonio, Texas, at the time that she filed her petition.

Petitioner was employed by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) until December 26, 2000. During her employment*172 with USAA, petitioner contributed to USAA's section 401(k) plan, the USAA Savings and Investment Plan (USAA SIP). On October 1, 2000, petitioner's balance in her USAA SIP account was $ 20,919.05.

On October 23, 2000, petitioner borrowed $ 10,400 from her USAA SIP account. This loan was documented by an agreement entitled "Savings and Investment Plan Truth in Lending Disclosures/Promissory Note" (loan agreement). Petitioner granted to USAA a security interest in her vested USAA SIP account balance to the extent necessary to secure the loan.

The loan agreement provided:

Payroll Deduction Authorization

I authorize USAA to institute continuing payroll deductions in

the full amount of each installment of principal and interest

payable on this note until the loan is repaid in full. I

understand that principal and interest payments shall be due and

payable at the end of each payroll period throughout the term of

the loan. * * * If my employment with USAA ends, then the unpaid

balance of the loan plus any interest as of my last day of

employment shall become due and payable immediately. * * *

*173

          *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Separation From Service

I understand that after I separate from service, I have 90 days

to repay my outstanding loan balance plus any interest as of my

last day of employment. Also, I understand that if I do not make

such repayment within 90 days after my separation from service,

the accounts in which I have given a security interest will be

permanently reduced by the amount of the outstanding loan and

will be treated for all purposes as a distribution to me. I also

understand that the outstanding balance may be taxable income to

me.

On December 21, 2000, petitioner was paid for the period from December 3 through 16, the last period paid in 2000. In accordance with the loan agreement, $ 122.67 was withheld from her pay as a payment on the loan. On December 26, 2000, petitioner's employment with USAA was terminated. On January 2, 2001, petitioner was paid for the period from December 17, 2000, through her termination date of December 26, 2000. The $ 122.67 loan payment was not deducted from her pay for this period because the net pay*174 due to petitioner was only $ 34.93. Petitioner received a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from USAA reflecting the January 2 payment as income for 2001.

In a statement dated January 16, 2001, USAA informed petitioner that she had a vested balance of $ 11,929.32 and an outstanding loan of $ 10,480.27 in her USAA SIP account as of that date. Petitioner was informed that she had to pay her outstanding loan balance by April 17, 2001, or it would be considered in default and subject to Federal and/or State income taxes. Petitioner was also informed that a 10- percent penalty might apply. Petitioner did not pay the outstanding loan balance.

As of March 31, 2001, petitioner had received a distribution payment of $ 11,961.16 from her USAA SIP account, less $ 4,487.24 withheld for Federal income taxes. The balance of petitioner's USAA SIP account, $ 10,480.27, was applied to her outstanding loan balance. USAA reported this transaction to petitioner and to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on a Form 1099-R, Distribution From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., for 2001 as a taxable distribution of $ 22,441.43 to petitioner.

Petitioner*175 reported the USAA SIP distribution on her Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2001. The IRS determined that petitioner owed a 10-percent additional tax on the early distribution from the USAA SIP.

OPINION

Section 402(a)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gowen v. Comm'r
2017 T.C. Summary Opinion 57 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Salomon Frias v. Comm'r
2017 T.C. Memo. 139 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Martinez v. Comm'r
2016 T.C. Memo. 182 (U.S. Tax Court, 2016)
Ryan v. Comm'r
2011 T.C. Memo. 139 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
Malena v. Comm'r
2011 T.C. Summary Opinion 16 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
Evers v. Comm'r
2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 140 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)
Jordan v. Commissioner
2006 T.C. Memo. 95 (U.S. Tax Court, 2006)
Royal v. Comm'r
2006 T.C. Memo. 72 (U.S. Tax Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2005 T.C. Memo. 171, 90 T.C.M. 35, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171, 36 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-commr-tax-2005.