Court Opinion

ID: 990307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:19:27.506427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:35.566089
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JAMES R. BROWN,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 95-2174
COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
(Tax Ct. No. 92-20023)

Argued: May 6, 1996

Decided: September 5, 1996

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and NORTON,
United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina,
sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Paula Marie Junghans, MARTIN, JUNGHANS, SNY-
DER & BERNSTEIN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Wil-
liam J. Patton, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Loretta C.
Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Gary R. Allen, Richard Farber,
Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James R. Brown appeals a decision of the United States Tax Court
upholding a determination by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
that a distribution Brown received in 1989 from the Maryland Teach-
ers' Retirement System was taxable income to him in that year. We
note that the material facts presented here are indistinguishable from
those we addressed in Adler v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 378 (4th Cir.
1996), in which we held that a distribution from the Maryland
Employees' Retirement System was entitled to rollover treatment
under 26 U.S.C.A. § 402(a)(5) (West 1988). The parties agree that the
distribution Brown received was a partial distribution from a qualified
plan, that he transferred the entire previously-untaxed portion of the
distribution ($149,283.76) to an eligible individual retirement account
within 60 days of receiving the payment, and that his retirement quali-
fies as a "separation from the service." See 26 U.S.C.A. § 402(a)(5),
(e)(4)(A)(iii). Therefore, Brown's distribution was entitled to rollover
treatment if he received it "on account of" his retirement. Id.
§ 402(e)(4)(A)(iii). As did the taxpayer in Adler, Brown elected, in
connection with his retirement, to transfer to a pension system, result-
ing in his receipt of the distribution; accordingly, he received the dis-
tribution "on account of" his retirement within the meaning of 26
U.S.C.A. § 402(e)(4)(A)(iii). See Adler , 86 F.3d at 381. For the rea-
sons set forth in Adler, we reverse.

REVERSED

                    2