TurboTax=TurboTrouble

One last note on form 4852
If you open the form on the IRS website it says you should attach it, so why wouldn't you?  Again, I am a US resident reporting a foreign pension.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4852.pdf
Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form
1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or
Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc.
▶Attach to Form 1040, 1040A, 1040-EZ, or 1040X

Easy, lad, let's not fall out over this!  

As I said before, TurboTax has its own idiosyncracies. I realise you can not file TurboTax electronically without including 4852 and a sub 1099R, and TurboTax is designed primarily for electronic filing. I understand you have no choice.

In a past post, I mentioned American exceptionalism. That was the wrong term, and I should have said America centric (the 50 States). There are a number of issues in which the IRS publications, instructions, and forms are confusing if you have a foreign something. As for TurboTax, the NRA/SSN/ITIN fiasco is but one example.

Bearing in mind this US centric enviroment, my interpretation of the instructions for a sub W2 or 1099R relate to the fact that within the 50 States, all employers and pension funds are required to have a Fed ID number and are required to issue a W2 or 1099R. If they don't, the IRS will want to know why. I've recently learned that even Estates in probate should have an ITIN. The instructions state that the taxpayer should contact the provider first in order to recieve a replacement form before filing the 4852. This is obviously impossible with a foreign employer or fund. They don't have a US Fed ID number and don't file with the IRS (directly). I see the identifying of missing W2s and 1099Rs as more of a regulatory issue with the IRS for those with (or, without!) a Fed ID number, and the taxpayer is the one to alert the IRS of a failure to meet regulations. As with so many IRS instructions, they relate wholly (IMHO) to the US centric enviroment, and ignore completely the filer with a foreign something.

The taxpayer with a foreign something will include an amount somewhere on their 1040 or associated forms. This amount is no more or less verifiable by the IRS computers than the info on the 4852, nor is any tax paid and claimed as deducted.

You are correct, it doesn't cost anything to file the 4852 if you are so inclined. The IRS surely can not complain, and there is always the 'safety' aspect of having filed. As you can observe from other threads, the 'safety' aspect can spark disagreements. There are a few on this forum who still file by paper, and the form (IMHO) is not required. If someone has been notified by the IRS of a failure to file this form, I hope they will come forward.

As always, we are not professionals, and we both could be wrong. Welcome to the confusing world of the expat filer.

Sorry if my last replies sounded a bit snippy, OAP, that wasn't the intention.

With regard to the question raised in my own post (reply#8, page 1 above) I hope I'm not contravening forum rules by copying/pasting the following from an IRS publication ( )... precise wording is so crucial when struggling to interpret these opaque rules (please remove if inappropriate and apologies)

IRS Publication 575 Pension & Annuity Income
For use in preparing 2012 returns
page 17.......
Distribution Before Annuity Starting Date From a Nonqualified Plan
If you receive a nonperiodic distribution before the annuity starting date from a plan other than a qualified retirement plan, it is allocated first to earnings (the taxable part) and then to the cost of the contract (the tax-free part). This allocation rule applies, for example, to a commercial annuity contract you bought directly from the issuer. You include in your gross income the smaller of:
• The nonperiodic distribution, or
• The amount by which the cash value of the contract (figured without considering any surrender charge) immediately before you receive the distribution exceeds your investment in the contract at that time.
Example. You bought an annuity from an insurance company. Before the annuity starting date under your annuity contract, you received a $7,000 distribution. At the time of the distribution, the annuity had a cash value of $16,000 and your investment in the contract was $10,000. The distribution is allocated first to earnings, so you must include $6,000 ($16,000 − $10,000) in your gross income. The remaining $1,000 ($7,000 − $6,000) is a tax-free return of part of your investment.
Exception to allocation rule. Certain nonperiodic distributions received before the annuity starting date are not subject to the allocation rule in the preceding discussion. Instead, you include the amount of the payment in gross income only to the extent that it exceeds the cost of the contract.
This exception applies to the following distributions.
• Distributions in full discharge of a contract that you receive as a refund of what you paid for the contract or for the complete surrender, redemption, or maturity of the contract.
• Distributions from life insurance or endowment contracts (other than modified endowment contracts, as defined in section 7702A of the Internal Revenue Code) that are not received as an annuity under the contracts.
• Distributions under contracts entered into before August 14, 1982, to the extent that they are allocable to your investment before August 14, 1982.


Based on a reading of the above - doesn't it look like, when determining the taxable amounts, the IRS would allow a deduction of my entire cost basis - from the lump-sum amounts received for each of my 2 UK policys?
My contributions were made with after-tax UK income - to an insurance company with whom I took out 2 different, non-qualified, self-employed retirement plans - prior to 1982. (In fact, no contributions were made after 1980.)  
The amounts of my two "25% lump-sum" distributions (received in 2012) were based upon the final value of each fund - prior to the transfer of the remaining 75% of their final value to Lifetime Annuities.  In other words the amounts were calculated and disbursed before the plans were converted into reduced Annuities .
This occured in 2012. In one case - a new policy number was assigned to the Annuity.  The other kept the same # - but I have written documentation of its transfer. In both cases - "the amount of the payment in gross income" far exceeds "the cost of the contract" (my contributions). (I'd still be paying tax on the amounts received - but the ENTIRE gross income amount would not be fully taxable.  And, were I to do this - I would not be deducting anything from future annuity payments (the entire annual annuity payment would be taxable) - as I would already have recaptured my entire cost basis in 2012 by doing what I propose above.
Will anyone venture an opinion as to whether I've interpreted/applied the rules correctly.....or even whether I'm looking at the relevant rules, in the first place.
What a mind-bender all this is......
  

@CaLaCa;

The opinions on the BE thread,
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=791104
may not be a specific answer to your question, but I do agree with JAJ (no surprises there).