FOLEY, Judge: The issues for decision, relating to petitioner's 2008 Federal income tax return, are whether petitioner is liable for a section 72(t)(1) 10% additional tax relating to distributions from a qualified retirement plan and whether interest is includible in petitioner's gross income pursuant to section 61.¹

In 2008 petitioner, at age 49, received a retirement distribution of $42,853 (distribution) from a qualified retirement plan and $18 of interest income. On or about April 13, 2009, petitioner timely filed her Federal income tax return relating to 2008 on which she reported the distribution and the $18 of interest income. Respondent received a Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement, or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., and a Form 1099-INT, Interest Income.

On August 9, 2010, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency relating to 2008. In the notice respondent determined 2012 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 157">*158 that petitioner was liable for a 10% additional tax (i.e., an early withdrawal penalty) relating to the distribution and additional income tax relating to $17 of unreported interest. On August 23, 2010, in response to the notice of deficiency, petitioner sent respondent $4,500. On October 18, 2010, petitioner, while residing in Darrow, Louisiana, filed her petition with the Court.

In 2008 petitioner received an early distribution from a qualified retirement plan.² Pursuant to section 72(t)(1), she is liable for a 10% additional tax relating to that distribution. Seesec. 72(t)(1) and (2); see also Dwyer v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 337">106 T.C. 337 (1996). The distribution does not meet any of the exceptions set forth in section 72(t)(2). Respondent also contends that petitioner received and failed to report an additional $17 of interest income. Respondent, however, did not present any predicate evidence relating to this matter. See Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128">932 F.2d 1128, 932 F.2d 1128">1133 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that "a 2012 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 157">*159 court need not give effect to the presumption of correctness in a case involving unreported income if the Commissioner cannot present some predicate evidence supporting its determination"), aff'g in part, rev'g in part and remanding in partT.C. Memo. 1990-68. Accordingly, we reject respondent's determination relating to interest income.

Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.