Brief Case
Pension Resource
U.S. Tax Court

James Christian Jensen v. Commissioner

T.C. Memo. 2003-249 · Docket 12930-01 · Decided Aug 19, 2003 · Chiechi · T.C. Memo.
Rule 155 computation
Source ↗
Addresses I.R.C. § 72
T.C. Memo. 2003-249
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JAMES CHRISTIAN JENSEN, Petitioner v

.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 12930-01. Filed August 19, 2003.

James Christian Jensen, pro se.

Paul K. Voelker

, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge

: Respondent determined a $106,445 deficiency in, and a $21,287.60 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)1

on, petitioner’s Federal income tax for 1998.

The issues remaining for decision are:

(1) Is petitioner required to include in his gross income for the year at issue certain distributions from his retirement plan (retirement plan distributions) that he received during that year? We hold that he is.

(2) Is petitioner entitled for the year at issue to a deduction for a claimed loss with respect to his radiology practice? We hold that he is not.

(3) Is petitioner liable for the year at issue for the 10percent additional tax under section 72 with respect to his retirement plan distributions that he received during that year? We hold that he is.

(4) Is petitioner liable for the year at issue for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)? We hold that he is.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Many of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time he filed the petition in this case, petitioner resided in Henderson, Nevada.

During 1998, petitioner received from Vanguard Fiduciary

Trust Co. (Vanguard) two retirement plan distributions in the amounts of $131,555 ($131,555 retirement plan distribution) and $42,704 ($42,704 retirement plan distribution), respectively. Vanguard issued to petitioner Form 1099-R, Distributions From is entitled for the year at issue to a deduction for his claimed loss with respect to his radiology practice.

We turn now to the 10-percent additional tax under section

72(t) that respondent determined for the year at issue with respect to the retirement plan distributions that petitioner received from Vanguard during that year. Petitioner acknowledges that if the Court were to find that he must include those distributions in his gross income for the year at issue, he is liable for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72. We have found that petitioner is required to include in his gross income for the year at issue the retirement plan distributions in question. On the record before us, we find that petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax.

We turn finally to the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). Petitioner acknowledges that if the Court were to find that he must include the retirement plan distributions in question in his gross income for the year at issue and that he is not entitled to a deduction for his claimed loss with respect to his radiology practice, he is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). We have found that petitioner is required to include in his gross income for the year at issue those distributions and that he is not entitled for that year to any such deduction. On the record before us, we find that petitioner is liable for the year at issue for the accuracy-related penalty.

We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of petitioner that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.

To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties, Decision will be entered under Rule 155 .

Footnotes

1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

2 retirement plan distribution that he received from Vanguard into a certificate of deposit in his name at American Savings Bank in Honolulu, Hawaii (Bank). (We shall refer to that certificate of deposit as petitioner’s American Savings Bank CD.) On March 31 and April 2, 1998, the Bank credited petitioner’s American Savings Bank CD with interest of $501.71 and $34.60, respectively. On April 6, 1998, petitioner withdrew the entire balance of $132,092.20 from petitioner’s American Savings Bank CD. For an undisclosed period of time, petitioner, who received a medical degree, operated a radiology practice. On May 25, 1997, that practice was closed. Petitioner timely filed Form 1040EZ, Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents (return), for his taxable year 1998. That return reported no income and no tax liability and claimed no prepayment credits. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency (notice) to peti-

3 On the instant record, we find

4 In support of his position, petitioner relies on his testimony and two exhibits. We are unwilling to accept that evidence as establishing petitioner’s position regarding his retirement plan distributions. Petitioner’s testimony was general, conclusory, vague, and uncorroborated. In this connection, petitioner could not even recall what happened to the $132,092.20 that he withdrew from petitioner’s American Savings Bank CD on April 6, 1998. As for the two exhibits on which petitioner relies, those exhibits show only that on March 3, 1998, petitioner purchased from the Bank a certificate of deposit in the amount of $131,555 and that on April 6, 1998, he withdrew that amount, as well as interest credited thereto. The record contains no evidence as to what

5 On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

Sections addressed
Also cites
Related documents