2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 1">*1 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax of $ 1,848 for the taxable year 2000.
The issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for a
Some of the facts have2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 1">*2 been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Columbus, Ohio, on the date the petition was filed in this case.
There are no disputed facts in this case. Petitioner wife (petitioner) withdrew $ 17,222.69 from a qualified retirement plan in 2000. Petitioner withdrew the funds in order to pay for certain medical treatments which she started in 2000, but the payments for these services were made primarily in 2001.2 On petitioners' joint Federal income tax return for 2000, petitioners included in income the $ 17,222.69 distribution, but they did not report liability for the
2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 1">*3
Distributions made to the employee * * * to the extent such
distributions do not exceed the amount allowable as a deduction
under
taxable year for medical care (determined without regard to
whether the employee itemizes deductions for such taxable year).
The deduction allowed under
Petitioners argue that the distribution from petitioner's retirement plan was used to pay medical expenses and therefore meets the requirements of the
We agree with respondent. The unambiguous language of
Petitioners argue in their petition that they were advised by petitioner's employer that the additional tax would not apply. They further argue that the filing instructions provided by the Internal Revenue Service state that the retirement plan should have noted petitioner's liability for the penalty on the Form 1099-R, Distributions2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 1">*5 From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., but that the form did not reflect any such liability. Finally, petitioners argue that they "have all medical receipts, bills, statements showing [petitioner's] out of pocket payments made following the withdrawal."
We do not question whether petitioners used the distributed funds for petitioner's medical expenses. However, regardless of whether petitioner's employer provided misguided advice, or whether her retirement plan failed to issue her a properly completed form,4 the requirements of
2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 1">*6 Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
Decision will be entered for respondent.
1. Petitioners concede liability for the self-employment income tax.↩
2. On petitioners' joint Federal income tax return for 2001, petitioners claimed an itemized deduction of $ 8,724.13 for medical expenses totaling $ 16,252.75, after application of the 7.5- percent limitation under
3. We note that even if petitioner had received the distribution in 2001, the
4. Petitioners, in their argument concerning the form issued by the retirement plan, point to the instructions for line 30 of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. This line is labeled "Penalty on early withdrawal of savings." Although this wording is similar to the statutory language of