Brief Case
U.S. Tax Court

Bryan K. Gauthier v. Commissioner

T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-15 · Docket 1625-01S · Decided Feb 15, 2002 · Powell · T.C. Summary Opinion

retirement plan. Rather, he contends that the exception to section 72(t)(1) contained in section 72(t)(2)(B) applies to the distribution from the section 401(k) plan (and by implication to the ESOP distribution if the ESOP was a qualified retirement plan).

Section 72(t)(2)(B) provides for an exception to the additional tax for:

Distributions made to the employee * * * to the extent such distributions do not exceed the amount allowable as a deduction under section 213 to the employee for amounts paid during the taxable year for medical care (determined without regard to whether the employee itemizes deductions for such taxable year).

Petitioner contends that he withdrew the funds because he needed and used the money to pay his mother’s medical bills. Petitioner has not substantiated that he paid any of his mother’s medical bills. But, even if he had, the exception contained in section 72(t)(2)(B) applies to payments that would be deductible under section 213. Section 213(a) allows deductions for medical expenses paid for “the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent (as defined in section 152)”. While petitioner’s mother could have been his dependent, see sec. 152(a)(4), in order for her to qualify as his dependent, petitioner would have had to provide over half of her support, sec. 152(a). We note that not only is the record totally devoid of any evidence to support this conclusion, but also petitioner did not claim his mother as a dependent on his 1998 return. We conclude that the section

Footnotes

1 The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

2 the issues are (1) whether petitioner is liable for the additional tax under section 72(t) and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). Petitioner resided in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the petition in this case was filed. The facts may be summarized as follows. During 1998, petitioner received a distribution of $4,388.25 from a section 401(k) retirement plan and $2,470.32 from an employee stock option plan (ESOP). Regions Bank Delchamps, Inc. was the trustee for both plans. Petitioner included both distributions in gross income on his 1998 Federal income tax return, but he did not pay any additional tax under section 72(t). During 1998, petitioner had not attained the age of 59-1/2. Petitioner did not claim any deduction for a dependency exemption on his 1998 return. Respondent received petitioner’s 1998 Federal income tax return on July 19, 1999. The return was mailed during that month, the exact date, however, is unclear. Petitioner had not

3 With regard to the distribution from the section 401(k) plan, petitioner does not dispute that it was a qualified

4 (...continued) cause. See Higbee v. Commissioner , 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division. Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

Sections addressed
Also cites
Related documents
  • REG-108639-99
    Proposed regulations under sections 401(k) and 401(m) of the Code provide guidance on the…
  • 89 FR 58886
    Required Minimum Distributions
  • Notice 2024-55
    Certain Exceptions to the 10 Percent Additional Tax Under Code Section 72(t)
  • 87 FR 10504
    Required Minimum Distributions
  • Notice 2024-2
    Miscellaneous Changes Under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022
  • Rev. Proc. 2008-50
    This procedure updates the comprehensive system of correction programs for sponsors of re…
  • Notice 2026-13
    Safe Harbor Explanations – Eligible Rollover Distributions
  • 88 FR 82796
    Long-Term, Part-Time Employee Rules for Cash or Deferred Arrangements Under Section 401(k)