UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LUISA DEAL, Petitioner v
.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 12757-98. Filed October 25, 1999.
Luisa Deal, pro se.
Yvonne M. Peters
, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge
: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1995 Federal income tax in the amount of $1,050.
limited exclusion is also available for distributions made to an employee for medical care expenses. See sec. 72(t)(2)(B). Petitioner's IRA was a qualified retirement plan.
Petitioner did not roll over her IRA distribution and does not claim to fit within any of the statutory exceptions of section 72(t)(2). Petitioner testified that she was aware of the provisions of section 72(t) when she filed her 1995 income tax return but claims that she relied on erroneous advice she received from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) when she called for information to prepare her return.
In sum, petitioner contends that the application of section
72(t) in this case is inequitable because she made a good faith effort to correctly file her 1995 Federal income tax and relied on IRS advice.
This Court has previously held that the authoritative sources of Federal tax law are statutes, regulations, and judicial case law and not informal IRS sources. See Zimmerman v. Commissioner , 71 T.C. 367, 371 (1978), affd. without published opinion 614 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1979); Green v. Commissioner , 59 T.C. 456, 458 (1972). Additionally, in order to ensure uniform enforcement of the tax law, the Commissioner must follow authoritative sources of Federal tax law and may correct mistakes of law made by IRS agents or employees. See Dixon v. United States , 381 U.S. 68, 72 (1965); Massaglia v. Commissioner , 286 F.2d 258, 262 (10th Cir. 1961), affg. 33 T.C. 379 (1959). Though it is unfortunate that petitioner may have received unhelpful or incorrect tax advice from IRS employees, that advice does not have the force of law.
Petitioner contends that her present financial hardship should relieve her from liability for the additional tax and asks this Court for relief. There is, however, no financial hardship exception to section 72(t).
Petitioner has not shown error in respondent's determination that she is liable for a 10-percent additional tax on her 1995 IRA distribution. Since petitioner fails to qualify for any of the statutory exceptions under section 72(t)(2), we hold that petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax on distributions from a qualified retirement plan for 1995 as provided in section 72(t)(1). Respondent is sustained on this issue.
To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent .