STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel’s three-page Sum. Op., Caren Kohl, a.k.a., Caren Rein, T. C. Sum. Op. 2024-4, filed 4/25/24, tells a story that’s all too familiar to those of us who served our apprenticeships in what was then called “the snakepit,” or “the zoo,” the calendar call in New York City Housing Part; mine was at 111 Centre Street, long ago.

Of course, STJ Publius’ exalted career path took her far from the sordid purlieus wherein this story takes place. To summarize, “… when she was in her early 50s, petitioner received a taxable retirement plan distribution of $10,342. She withdrew the money to pay past-due rent and to avoid being evicted by her landlord. Petitioner did not include the distribution in income on her 2018 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2024-4, at p. 2.

Easy enough to recall lawyers with bushels of files, pro ses with haunted eyes, crying babies and muttering old folks, Court officers alternately harried or bored, a scene looking for a Daumier. Finally, a bank check handed over, a stip scrawled and handed to a clerk, and we head for the office and a dozen telephone messages.

“Petitioner’s position remains, however, that she should not be liable for the additional tax imposed by section 72(t) because she withdrew the funds due to economic hardship.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2024-4, at p. 2.

The ending is simple enough.

“Petitioner’s only argument in opposition to the imposition of the additional tax is that withdrawals made for economic hardship are exempt from it. To support her claim, petitioner points to section 72(t)(2)(I), enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-328, div. T, 136 Stat. 4459, 5296 (2022). That provision exempts certain withdrawals made for emergency expenses from the additional tax. However, section 72(t)(2)(I) applies only ‘to distributions made after December 31, 2023.” Consolidated Appropriations Act § 115(c), 136 Stat. at 5297. It is not applicable to the distribution petitioner received in 2018. And because it is not, petitioner is liable for the additional tax on her early retirement plan distribution.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2024-4, at p. 3.

The law, of course, is the law, and STJ Publius may not vary it.

Taishoff, laboring under no such restraint, may point out that being homeless in Fun City is no fun. Especially for a woman in her fifties, early or late.

And, while I’m about it, why has OCC, underfunded, understrength, overworked and underpaid, as Danny Werfel would have us believe, allocated and deployed three (count ’em, three) of their hard-pressed attorneys to this case? Is Caren, broke and facing homelessness, a threat to the fisc equal to the clients of some of my two-Grey-Goose-martini luncheon colleagues?