Merritt v. Commissioner

1992 T.C. Memo. 443, 64 T.C.M. 397, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 465
United States Tax Court·Decided August 5, 1992·No. Docket No. 28142-90·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

THOMAS S. MERRITT AND BARBARA H. MERRITT, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Merritt v. Commissioner
Docket No. 28142-90
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1992-443; 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 465; 64 T.C.M. (CCH) 397;
August 5, 1992, Filed

*465 Decision will be entered for petitioners.

For Petitioners: Stephen M. Feldman and Marc L. Prey.
For Respondent: Eric M. Nemeth and Stewart Todd Hittinger.
COLVIN

COLVIN

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioners had a $ 22,814.77 income tax deficiency for 1987.

In 1987 petitioners received lump-sum distributions, as a result of Thomas S. Merritt's 1986 retirement, from his profit-sharing plan, pension plan, and employee stock option plan. Petitioners timely rolled over the pension plan and stock option plan distributions. They elected 10-year averaging for the profit-sharing plan distribution on their 1987 return.

The issue to be decided is whether petitioners qualify under section 1124(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, 2475, for 10-year averaging for this distribution. We hold that they do. Younger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-387.

In light of our decision on this issue, we need not decide petitioners' alternative claim that they qualify for 10-year averaging for their profit-sharing plan lump-sum distribution under TRA section 1122(h)(3), 100 Stat. 2470.

Unless*466 otherwise specified, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

1. Petitioners

Petitioners are husband and wife who resided in Howe, Indiana, when they filed their petition in this case. All references to petitioner in the singular are to Thomas S. Merritt.

Petitioner retired from General Telephone Co. of Indiana (GTE) on March 1, 1986. He was 51 years old when he retired. While an employee of GTE, petitioner participated in: (a) The GTE Savings, Investment and Tax Deferral Plan (profit-sharing plan); (b) the GTE Service Corporation General Pension Trust (pension plan); and (c) the GTE Consolidated Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP). All three plans were qualified under sections 401 and 501.

2. Distributions from Petitioner's Employee Plans

Petitioner received distributions of his balances in these three plans as a result of his retirement. On February 28, 1987, petitioner received a $ 70,110.15 lump-sum distribution of his balance in the profit-sharing plan. On March*467 1, 1987, petitioner received a $ 232,124.34 lump-sum distribution of his balance in the pension plan. Petitioner timely rolled this amount over to a qualified individual retirement account (IRA). Also, on or about March 1, 1987, petitioner received a $ 9,571 lump-sum distribution of his balance in the ESOP (ESOP distribution). Petitioner timely rolled all but $ 132 of this amount over to a qualified IRA.

GTE sent petitioners a notice with the distributions, which included the following:

If an employee separates from service in 1986 and receives a lump sum distribution in 1987, but before March 16, 1987, on account of his separation from service, he may elect to treat the distribution as if he received it in 1986. In that event, the distribution would be taxed under tax rates in effect in 1986 and would not be subject to the 10% tax on early distribution, the 15% tax on large distributions, or the new rules regarding lump sum distributions.

3. Petitioners' Income Tax Returns

A certified public accounting firm prepared petitioners' 1987 income tax return. Petitioners gave the GTE notice to their accountants to help prepare their return. The accountants researched *468 how to treat petitioners' lump-sum distributions, and concluded that petitioners were entitled to elect 10-year averaging for the profit-sharing plan distribution on their 1987 income tax return.

Petitioners timely filed their income tax return for 1987 on April 10, 1988. In it, petitioners elected to roll the $ 232,124 pension plan distribution and $ 9,439 of the $ 9,571 ESOP distribution into an IRA under section 408. Petitioners treated $ 132 of the ESOP distribution as ordinary income.

Petitioners elected 10-year averaging for the $70,110.15 profit-sharing plan lump-sum distribution. Petitioners attached Form 4972, Tax on Lump-Sum Distributions for 1987, to their return. Petitioners correctly calculated the tax, using 1986 rates.

Petitioners also attached the following statement to their 1987 return:

STATEMENT 2 - PENSION AND ANNUITY INCOME

GENERAL RULE

INVESTMENTEXPECTED

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

Merritt v. Commissioner, 1992 T.C. Memo. 443, 64 T.C.M. 397, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 465 (tax 1992).

1992 T.C. Memo. 443 (Merritt v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dzuris v. United States
44 Fed. Cl. 452 (Federal Claims, 1999)