Inc. (TWA). During her employment with TWA, Mrs. Domanico participated in TWA’s 401(k) plan.

In 1996, Mrs. Domanico terminated her employment with TWA because of a permanent injury that she incurred on board an aircraft. Several years later, she continued her studies towards a permanent teaching certificate. In 2000, Mrs. Domanico began her graduate studies. She incurred the following higher education expenses:

Year

College

Amount

1999 Adelphi & St. John’s University $6,273 2000 St. John’s University 11,848 2001 St. John’s University 10,357 2002 Teacher Education Institute 517 2003 Teacher Education Institute 3,152 Total $32,147 During 2001, Mrs. Domanico was also employed as a librarian. TWA informed Mrs. Domanico by letter dated July 25, 2001, that American Airlines had acquired TWA and that she was eligible to “roll over” your account balance to another qualified plan or IRA. You were advised that, once your TWA-sponsored Plan (the “Plan”) is terminated, you will be required to: (i) make an election either to roll over the balances in that plan to the American Airlines $uper $aver Plan (or other qualified plan if you take a job with another company that allows such rollovers); (ii) transfer your balances to an individual IRA; or (iii) take a direct distribution. On the basis of her research of the 2001 U.S. Master Tax Guide (Master Tax Guide), a tax guide published by Commerce Clearing House, Inc., a private commercial publisher, Mrs. Domanico decided to take a direct distribution of $40,457 from the 401(k) plan in 2001. At the time of the distribution, she had not reached 55 years of age, nor was she disabled. In 2001, the year that she received the distribution, Mrs. Domanico used $10,357 of the distribution to pay higher education expenses that she incurred in that year. With the exception of $8,560, see supra note 2, she used the remaining funds to (1) pay off debt that she had incurred in 1999 and 2000 for higher education expenses and (2) pay for higher education expenses that she subsequently incurred in 2002 and 2003.

Petitioners timely filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income

Tax Return, for 2001. On their return, petitioners reported the $40,457 distribution as income but did not report the 10-percent additional tax for an early distribution under section 72(t). On Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans (Including IRAs), and Other Tax-Favored Accounts, petitioners indicated that the early distribution was not subject to the additional tax by virtue of exception 8 (IRA distributions made for higher education expenses).

In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the 10-percent additional tax on the early distribution from Mrs. Domanico’s 401(k) plan pursuant to section 72(t). An attachment to the notice of deficiency stated, in relevant part:

the qualified retirement plan in question was not an individual retirement plan, and that the additional tax exceptions to the 10% penalty also apply when early distributions are made from an IRA .

* * * * * * * Education Expenses . The 10% penalty does not apply if the individual uses the IRA money to pay for “qualified higher education expenses” for the individual, the individual’s spouse, child, or grandchild of the individual or the individual’s spouse. Qualified expenses included [sic] tuition at a post-secondary educational institution, books, fees, supplies and equipment (Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(E)).

[Emphasis added.]

Therefore, in petitioners’ view, because distributions from an IRA and a qualified plan; i.e., a 401(k) plan, are treated the same in some instances for purposes of the 10-percent penalty and because a distribution from an IRA that is used for higher education expenses is exempt from the 10-percent penalty, a distribution from a qualified plan that is used for higher education expenses should also be exempt from the 10-percent penalty. Moreover, according to petitioners, a one-time distribution should cover expenses incurred over a number of years because paragraph 2179 of the Master Tax Guide does not state that the funds must be used in the same calendar year that the distribution is received. As discussed below, we disagree with petitioners’ contention.

First, it is well settled that the authoritative sources of

Federal tax law are the statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions and not guides such as the Master Tax Guide that are published by private commercial publishers. See, e.g., Zimmerman IRA is highly technical, and we applaud petitioners for their efforts in researching the tax consequences of receiving a 401(k) plan distribution. The Tax Court, however, is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy , 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Hays Corp. v. Commissioner , 40 T.C.

436, 442-443 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964). Consequently, our jurisdiction to grant equitable relief is limited. Woods v. Commissioner , 92 T.C. 776, 784-787 (1989);

Estate of Rosenberg v. Commissioner

, 73 T.C. 1014, 1017-1018 (1980). Although we acknowledge that petitioners used the 401(k) plan distribution for a laudable purpose, absent some constitutional defect, we are constrained to apply the law as written, see Estate of Cowser v. Commissioner , 736 F.2d 1168, 1171-1174 (7th Cir. 1984), affg. 80 T.C. 783, 787-788 (1983), and we may not rewrite the law because we may “‘deem its effects susceptible of improvement’”, Commissioner v. Lundy , 516 U.S.

235, 252 (1996) (quoting Badaracco v. Commissioner , 464 U.S. 386, 398 (1984)). Accordingly, petitioners’ appeal for relief must, in this instance, be addressed to their elected representatives. “The proper place for a consideration of petitioner’s complaint is the halls of Congress, not here.” Hays Corp. v. Commissioner , supra at 443.

Therefore, we conclude that Mrs. Domanico’s 401(k) plan distribution is subject to the additional tax under section 72(t). Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination on this issue.

Conclusion

We have considered all of the other arguments made by petitioners, and, to the extent that we have not specifically addressed them, we conclude that those arguments are contrary to the legislative mandate.

Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, as well as petitioners’ partial concession, see supra note 2, Decision will be entered for respondent.