                   T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-100



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               WILLIAM ANTHONY KNIPP, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 932-05S.                 Filed July 6, 2006.



     William Anthony Knipp, pro se.

     Monica J. Miller, for respondent.



     WELLS, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 in effect at the time the petition was

filed.   The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other

court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.      All

section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended,

and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice

and Procedure.
                                - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in Federal income tax for

petitioner’s 2002 taxable year.    After concessions, the amount in

dispute is $2,352.    The issue we must decide is whether

petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax on early

distributions pursuant to section 72(t) due to a distribution

from his qualified retirement plan.

                             Background

     At the time of filing the petition in the instant case,

petitioner resided in Jacksonville, Florida.    During taxable year

2002, petitioner received a $23,520.78 distribution from a

qualified retirement plan with Financial Administrative Services

Corporation (FASC).    The Form 1099-R, Distributions From

Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs,

Insurance Contracts, etc., issued by FASC characterized the

distribution as a taxable early distribution.    Petitioner

reported the distribution as income on his 2002 tax return but

did not report the 10-percent additional tax on his 2002 tax

return.

                             Discussion

     We decide the instant case on the record without regard to

section 7491(a).   Section 72(t)(1) imposes a 10-percent

additional tax on early distributions from qualified retirement

plans unless the distribution meets one of the exceptions

enumerated in section 72(t)(2).    Petitioner was 45 years old as
                                 - 3 -

of the date of trial.   He was not disabled and did not use the

distribution to pay for qualified higher education expenses or to

purchase his first home.   See sec. 72(t)(2)(A), (E), (F).     At

trial, petitioner presented no evidence that he qualified for any

of the exceptions enumerated in section 72(t)(2).      Accordingly,

we hold that petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional

tax of $2,352 pursuant to section 72(t)(1).

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
