UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBERT J. HOAGLUND, Petitioner v
.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18418-97. Filed September 9, 1998.
Robert J. Hoaglund, pro se.
Margaret C. Tinagero
, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JACOBS, Judge
: This case is presently before the Court on respondent's Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings pursuant to Rule 120.
Respondent determined a $10,995 deficiency in petitioner's
Federal income tax for 1994, and a $2,199 accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662.
Unless indicated otherwise, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. On July 14, 1998, respondent filed a Motion For Judgment On T he Pleadings pursuant to Rule 120, claiming that the undisputed facts in the pleadings require judgment in favor of respondent as a matter of law. On August 17, 1998, petitioner filed a Response To Respondent's Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings. The sole issue for decision is whether an order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California discharged petitioner's debt to respondent for the 10-percent additional tax pursuant to section 72(t) on premature distributions from an individual retirement account (IRA).
The facts set forth below are derived from the pleadings filed by the parties.
Background
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in
Thousand Oaks, California.
B y a notice of deficiency dated July 7, 1997, respond ent determined various increases in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1994, including a 10 -percent additional tax pursuant to section 72(t) for premature distrib utions from an IRA. In a petition to this Court filed on September 8, 1997, petitioner disputed only respondent's attempt to collect the additional tax for premature distributions, asserting that such debt was discharged by order of the bankruptcy court, effective July 30, 1996.
Attached to the petition filed by petitioner was a copy of the bankruptcy court's discharge order. The order indicates that petitioner filed a petition with the bankruptcy court on April 24, 1996, pursuant to chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.). The order further provides that no compla int objecting to the discharge of petitioner's de bt was filed, or in the alternative that if one was filed, it was not sustained. Consequently, the bankruptcy court ordered the following:
1. The above-named debtor [petitioner] is released from all dischargeable debts, except those pending complaints which will be determined later.
2. Any judgment heretofore or hereafter obtained in any court other than this court is null and void as a determination of the personal liability of t he debtor [petitioner] with respect to any of the following:
(a) debts dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. Section 523; (b) unless heretofore or hereafter determined by order of this court to be nondischargeable, debts alleged to be excepted from discharge under clauses (2), (4) and (6) of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a);
(c) debts determined by this court to be discharged. 3. All cre ditors whose debts are discharged by this order and all creditors whose judgments are declared null and void by paragraph 2 above are enjoined from instituting or continuing any action or empl oying any process or engaging in any act to collect such debts as personal liabilities of the above-named debtor.
The order of discharge was entered on July 30, 1996. In answer to petitioner's petition, respondent generally denied petitioner's allega tion that the bankruptcy court had discharged petitioner's debt for the additional tax on p remature distributions. In reply to that answer, petitioner asserted that respondent failed to object to the discharge of petitioner's debts after notice by the U.S. Trustee assigned to the case, and petitioner argued that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel prohibited respondent fr o m attempting to collect the additional tax on premature distributions.
Discussion
Rule 120 provides that after the pleadings in a case are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. The granting of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is proper only where the pleadings do not ra ise a genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Abrams v. Commissioner , 82 T.C. 403, 408 (1984); Anthony v. Commissioner , 66 T.C. 367 (1976), affd. without published opinion 566 F.2d 1168 (3d Cir. 1977). We find that no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute herein.
Respondent is not herein entitled to judgment as a matter of law because we do not have jurisdiction to address the issue raised * * * * * * * (7) to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable and for the benef it of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, other than a tax penalty--(A) relating to a tax of a kind not specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (B) imposed with respect to a transaction or event that occu rred before three years before the date of the filing of the petition; * * * Respondent as serts that the additional tax under section 72(t) falls within the confines of these exceptions and therefore is nondischargeable by the bankruptcy court.
Petitioner argues, in essence, that the additional tax under section 72(t) is a tax penalty rather than an income tax, and that the penalty is a dischargeable debt. Petitioner further reiterates his position in the petition and reply to respondent's answer that the bankruptcy court has already resolved this issue throug h its order. Alternatively, petitioner asks us to remand the issue back to the bankruptcy court for resolution.
The parti es apparently request us to determine the characterization of the deficiency arising under section 72(t) for purposes of determining its dischargeability. In this regard, we note th e existence of various tests for analyzing the proper characterization of items as taxes for purposes of priority under accuracy-related penalty determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency, and because there is no justiciable issue before us, we shall dismiss petitioner's case for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
To reflect the foregoing, An order denying respondent's motion will be issued; an order of dismissal and decision in favor of respondent will be entered .