Mitchell v. Comm'r

2006 T.C. Memo. 101, 91 T.C.M. 1172, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 99
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 11, 2006
DocketNo. 7144-04
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2006 T.C. Memo. 101 (Mitchell 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
Mitchell v. Comm'r, 2006 T.C. Memo. 101, 91 T.C.M. 1172, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 99 (tax 2006).

Opinion

EUGENIE DENISE MITCHELL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Mitchell v. Comm'r
No. 7144-04
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2006-101; 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 99; 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 1172; RIA TM 56516;
May 11, 2006, Filed
*99 Eugenie Denise Mitchell, pro se.
Margaret A. Martin and Daniel J. Parent, for respondent.
Swift, Stephen J.

STEPHEN J. SWIFT

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

SWIFT, Judge: The issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable under section 72(t) for a 10-percent additional tax on $ 15,422 that was distributed early from petitioner's retirement annuity accounts.

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 are so found.

At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Sacramento, California.

From 1984 to 2001, petitioner was employed as an attorney with various section 501(c)(3) organizations, which organizations made contributions on petitioner's behalf to four separate section 403(b) tax-deferred annuity accounts and to one tax-deferred simplified employee plan/individual retirement account (SEP-IRA).

The employer contributions made to petitioner's annuity and SEP-IRA accounts were made with funds which were not included in petitioner's*100 taxable income.

On February 28, 2001, petitioner's then-current employer went out of business, and petitioner was laid off. As a result of being laid off, in the spring of 2001 petitioner applied for and received unemployment benefits from the State of California.

In June of 2001, petitioner began practicing law as a partner in her own law partnership, which partnership struggled financially throughout 2001.

At various times in 2001, due to her financial difficulties, petitioner requested and received $ 17,422 in early distributions from her four annuity and SEP-IRA accounts, as follows:

Annuity and SEP       Date of        Amount of

   Accounts       Distribution      Distribution

_______________      ____________      ____________

   First          06/22/01        $  3,000

   Second          06/22/01         6,000

   Third          06/22/01         5,000

   Fourth          10/01/01         1,422

   SEP-IRA         ----/01         2,000

*101                          _______

     Total distributions           $ 17,422

As of the end of 2001, petitioner had not attained the age of 59-1/2.

During 2001, petitioner paid a total of $ 1,809 in unreimbursed medical expenses, and petitioner's law partnership paid on petitioner's behalf health insurance premiums in the amount of $ 3,209.

On August 15, 2002, petitioner timely filed her 2001 individual Federal income tax return on which return petitioner reported the total $ 17,422 in early distributions petitioner received during 2001 from her annuity and SEP-IRA accounts as taxable income.

Petitioner, however, on her 2001 individual Federal income tax return failed to report, and petitioner failed to pay with the filing of her return, a section 72(t) 10-percent additional tax on the $ 17,422 in early distributions petitioner received from her annuity and SEP-IRA accounts.

Also, on her 2001 tax return petitioner claimed a section 162(l) ordinary deduction of $ 1,925, the amount allowable under section 162(l)(1)(B), relating to the $ 3,209 in health insurance premiums paid by petitioner's law partnership*102 on petitioner's behalf.

On January 23, 2004, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of deficiency with respect to petitioner's 2001 individual Federal income tax in which respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the section 72(t) 10-percent additional tax in the amount of $ 1,742 on the total $ 17,422 in early distributions petitioner received in 2001 from her annuity and her SEP-IRA accounts.

At trial, petitioner stipulated the applicability of the section 72(t) 10-percent additional tax on the $ 2,000 early distribution from her SEP-IRA account.

Petitioner disputes the applicability of the section 72(t) 10-percent additional tax only on the $ 15,422 in early distributions petitioner received from her annuity accounts.

OPINION

Generally, under the flush language of section 403(b)

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2006 T.C. Memo. 101, 91 T.C.M. 1172, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-commr-tax-2006.