                         T.C. Memo. 1999-352



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                       LUISA DEAL, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 12757-98.                   Filed October 25, 1999.



     Luisa Deal, pro se.

     Yvonne M. Peters, for respondent.


               MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge:    Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner's 1995 Federal income tax in the amount

of $1,050.
                               - 2 -


     The issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for a

10-percent additional tax under section 72(t)(1)1 on a $10,500

distribution from her individual retirement account (IRA).

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.   At the time the petition

was filed, petitioner resided in La Jolla, California.

     In 1995, at the age of 52, petitioner received an IRA

distribution from Smith Barney, Inc., of $10,500.   Petitioner did

not roll over the IRA distribution into another qualified IRA.

Petitioner reported the $10,500 distribution on her 1995 Federal

income tax return as a taxable IRA distribution but did not

compute the additional 10-percent additional tax due for

premature distribution.

     In a notice of deficiency dated December 31, 1995,

respondent determined a deficiency of $1,050.   This amount

represented a 10-percent additional tax on IRA distributions

pursuant to section 72.

                              OPINION

     Under section 408(d)(1), a distribution from an IRA is

taxable to the distributee in the year of distribution in the


     1
          Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
                              - 3 -


manner provided under section 72.   Section 408(d)(3) provides an

exception to the general rule for certain "rollovers" by the

distributee; namely, where a distribution is paid to the

distributee, and the distributee transfers the entire amount of

the distribution to an IRA or an individual retirement annuity

within 60 days of receipt.

     Section 72(t)(1) provides for a 10-percent additional tax on

distributions from qualified retirement plans.   Section 72(t)(2)

excludes qualified retirement plan distributions from the 10-

percent additional tax if the distributions are:   (1) Made on or

after the date on which the employee attains the age of 59-1/2;

(2) made to a beneficiary (or to the estate of the employee) on

or after the death of the employee; (3) attributable to the

employee's being disabled within the meaning of section 72(m)(7);

(4) part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments

(not less frequently than annually) made for the life (or life

expectancy) of the employee or joint lives (or joint life

expectancies) of such employee and his designated beneficiary;

(5) made to an employee after separation from service after

attainment of age 55;2 or (6) dividends paid with respect to

stock of a corporation which are described in section 404(k).    A




     2
          This provision, codified at sec. 72(t)(2)(A)(v), is not
applicable to premature IRA distributions. See sec. 72(t)(3)(A).
                               - 4 -


limited exclusion is also available for distributions made to an

employee for medical care expenses.    See sec. 72(t)(2)(B).

     Petitioner's IRA was a qualified retirement plan.

Petitioner did not roll over her IRA distribution and does not

claim to fit within any of the statutory exceptions of section

72(t)(2).   Petitioner testified that she was aware of the

provisions of section 72(t) when she filed her 1995 income tax

return but claims that she relied on erroneous advice she

received from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) when she called

for information to prepare her return.

     In sum, petitioner contends that the application of section

72(t) in this case is inequitable because she made a good faith

effort to correctly file her 1995 Federal income tax and relied

on IRS advice.

     This Court has previously held that the authoritative

sources of Federal tax law are statutes, regulations, and

judicial case law and not informal IRS sources.    See Zimmerman v.

Commissioner, 71 T.C. 367, 371 (1978), affd. without published

opinion 614 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1979); Green v. Commissioner, 59

T.C. 456, 458 (1972).   Additionally, in order to ensure uniform

enforcement of the tax law, the Commissioner must follow

authoritative sources of Federal tax law and may correct mistakes

of law made by IRS agents or employees.    See Dixon v. United
                                 - 5 -


States, 381 U.S. 68, 72 (1965); Massaglia v. Commissioner, 286

F.2d 258, 262 (10th Cir. 1961), affg. 33 T.C. 379 (1959).

     Though it is unfortunate that petitioner may have received

unhelpful or incorrect tax advice from IRS employees, that advice

does not have the force of law.

     Petitioner contends that her present financial hardship

should relieve her from liability for the additional tax and asks

this Court for relief.   There is, however, no financial hardship

exception to section 72(t).

     Petitioner has not shown error in respondent's determination

that she is liable for a 10-percent additional tax on her 1995

IRA distribution.   Since petitioner fails to qualify for any of

the statutory exceptions under section 72(t)(2), we hold that

petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax on

distributions from a qualified retirement plan for 1995 as

provided in section 72(t)(1).    Respondent is sustained on this

issue.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
