CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,424 in petitioners' Federal income tax (tax) for their taxable year 2011.

*161 The issues remaining for decision for petitioners' taxable year 2011 are:

(1) Are petitioners liable for the additional tax imposed by section 72(t)(1)¹ with respect to a distribution that petitioner Mary E. Barie received from an individual retirement account that she maintained? We hold that they are.

(2) Are petitioners entitled to a deduction under section 219(a) with respect to a contribution that petitioner Thomas R. Barie made to an individual retirement account that he maintained? We hold that they are not.

All of the facts have been deemed established for purposes of this case under Rule 91(f).

At the time petitioners filed the petition, they resided in Pennsylvania.

During taxable year 2011, both petitioners were retired. Each petitioner maintained a separate individual retirement2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 158">*159 account (IRA). In 2011, before petitioner Mary E. Barie (Ms. Barie) was 59 1/2 years old, she withdrew $5,615 (Ms. Barie's IRA distribution) from an IRA that she maintained at Citizens Bank. In 2011, petitioner Thomas R. Barie (Mr. Barie) contributed $5,000 (Mr. Barie's IRA contribution) to an IRA that he maintained at American Century Services, LLC.

*162 Petitioners jointly filed Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for their taxable year 2011 (2011 return). In that return, petitioners included in gross income, inter alia, Ms. Barie's IRA distribution and a distribution from a certain pension or retirement account (collectively, retirement distributions). In the 2011 return, petitioners did not report any wages, commissions, self-employment income, alimony, combat pay, or other compensation. Petitioners did not report in that return any additional tax imposed by section 72(t)(1) (10-percent additional tax) with respect to Ms. Barie's IRA distribution. In their 2011 return, petitioners claimed a deduction for Mr. Barie's IRA contribution.

Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioners for their taxable year 2011 (notice). In that notice, respondent determined, inter alia, (1) that petitioners2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 158">*160 are liable for the 10-percent additional tax imposed by section 72(t)(1) with respect to Ms. Barie's IRA distribution and (2) that petitioners are not entitled to a deduction under section 219(a) with respect to Mr. Barie's IRA contribution.²

Petitioners bear the burden of establishing that the determinations in the notice that remain at issue are erroneous. SeeRule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111">290 U.S. 111, 290 U.S. 111">115, 54 S. Ct. 8">54 S. Ct. 8, 78 L. Ed. 212">78 L. Ed. 212, 1933-2 C.B. 112 (1933). Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and petitioners bear the burden of proving entitlement to any deduction claimed. See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79">503 U.S. 79, 503 U.S. 79">84, 112 S. Ct. 1039">112 S. Ct. 1039, 117 L. Ed. 2d 226">117 L. Ed. 2d 226 (1992).

We first consider whether petitioners are liable for their taxable year 2011 for the 10-percent additional tax imposed by section 72(t)(1) for their taxable year 2011 with respect to Ms. Barie's IRA distribution. Section 72(t)(1) provides:SEC. 72. ANNUITIES; CERTAIN PROCEEDS OF ENDOWMENT AND LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACTS.

(t) 10-Percent Additional Tax on Early Distributions from Qualified Retirement Plans.--

(1) Imposition of additional tax.--If any taxpayer receives any amount from a qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 4974(c)), the taxpayer's tax under this2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 158">*161 chapter for the taxable year in which such amount is received shall be increased by an amount equal to 10 percent of the portion of such amount which is includible in gross income.