Hall v. Comm'r

1998 T.C. Memo. 336, 76 T.C.M. 473, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 334
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedSeptember 22, 1998
DocketTax Ct. Dkt. No. 21526-95
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1998 T.C. Memo. 336 (Hall 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
Hall v. Comm'r, 1998 T.C. Memo. 336, 76 T.C.M. 473, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 334 (tax 1998).

Opinion

ROBERT A. HALL AND LAVERNE M. HALL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Hall v. Comm'r
Tax Ct. Dkt. No. 21526-95
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1998-336; 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 334; 76 T.C.M. (CCH) 473;
September 22, 1998, Filed
*334

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

Daniel A. Raas, for petitioners.
Christal W. Hillstead, for respondent.
DEAN, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE.

DEAN

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

DEAN, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. 1

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1992 Federal income tax of $662.

Petitioners concede that they received in 1992 interest income of $58 that they failed to report on their Federal income tax return and that they are liable for the 10-percent premature distribution tax on retirement distributions to petitioner Laverne Hall in 1992. Petitioners also concede that if certain retirement account distributions to petitioner Robert A. Hall (petitioner) are includable in income, they too are subject to the 10-percent tax on premature distributions.

The issue remaining for decision is whether retirement account distributions to Robert A. Hall (petitioner) are not subject *335 to tax because they constitute income derived from Indian fishing- rights-related activity.

All of the facts have been stipulated and along with the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioners resided in Ferndale, Washington, at the time they filed their petition in this case.

Petitioners Robert A. Hall and Laverne M. Hall were in 1992 and are still members of the Swinamish Indian Tribal Community (Swinamish) and the Lummi Indian Tribe (Lummi), respectively, federally recognized Tribes of American Indians. The Swinamish and Lummi Tribes are each signatories of the Treaty of Point Elliot, Jan. 22, 1855, U.S. -- Tribes of Indians in Wash. Territory, 12 Stat. 927 (1859), in which both tribes reserved fishing rights at all of their usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations. 2

From 1979 through 1992, petitioner was employed by the Lummi as a full-time worker in the tribal fish hatchery. The parties agree that petitioner's work at the fish hatchery is treaty fishing- rights-related activity as that term is used in section 7873.

The parties further agree that in 1992 all employees *336 of the hatchery received, in addition to wages, the choice to have an extra $160 per month paid for their benefit either into a health plan or a retirement account. Employees could not receive the monthly additional $160 amount except by choosing one of the two offered options.

The parties have stipulated transcripts of petitioner's account with the Capital Guardian Trust Company, Investment Company of America (Guardian). The transcripts show that petitioner's Guardian account was established in September of 1988 and that contributions to the account, accrual of interest to and withdrawals from the account have continued through 1992. Contributions to the account are denominated in the transcript as "employee contribution". The account summaries of the transcripts for the years 1988 through 1990 refer to account contributions as "IRA CONTRIBS:". In 1992, petitioner's employer paid $1,920 into the Guardian account.

The Guardian account in 1992 made three payments to petitioner, $750, $ 915.11 and $759.25, totaling $2,424.36. The 1992 account summary for the Guardian account describes a premature distribution of $2,424.36, of which $12.67 was Form 1099 dividends. The *337 1992 account summary lists "Form 5498" ("IRA Contribution Information") total contributions of $1,920, and a remaining account value of $155.

Petitioner was not yet 59-1/2 at the time he received the retirement account distributions from Guardian and from a second account with Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential). In 1992, the Prudential account paid to petitioner a $268 retirement account distribution.

Petitioners reported on their 1992 Federal income tax return as IRA distributions includable in income the retirement distribution to petitioner from Guardian. Petitioners did not deduct any amount as an IRA deduction. Petitioners did not report the retirement distribution from Prudential or compute the 10 percent tax on premature distributions from either account. Respondent examined petitioners' return and made adjustments including a determination that the Prudential distribution is includable in gross income and that retirement distributions to petitioner from both the Prudential and Guardian accounts are premature.

OPINION

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner argues that he should not have to include any of the Prudential distribution in income and that he made *338 a mistake by including the Guardian distributions in income because distributions from both accounts are exempt from taxation as income derived by an Indian from fishing-rights-related activity under section 7873.

Section 7873 provides in relevant part:

(a) In General. --

(1) Income and self-employment taxes. -- No tax shall be imposed by subtitle A on income derived --

(A) by a member of an Indian tribe directly or through a qualified Indian entity, or

(B) by a qualified Indian entity, from a fishing rights-related activity of such tribe.

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

Related

Harrell v. Comm'r
2017 T.C. Memo. 76 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Morris v. Comm'r
2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 171 (U.S. Tax Court, 2010)
Schmalzer v. Commissioner
1998 T.C. Memo. 399 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1998 T.C. Memo. 336, 76 T.C.M. 473, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-commr-tax-1998.