G. Richard and Sara B. Childs - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          $2,000) in 1989.  See sec. 219(a), (g); sec. 4973(b).  The                  
          contribution to petitioner's Fidelity IRA in the amount of                  
          $221,534.81 was distributed to and received by petitioner on                
          August 14, 1990, and is not at issue in this case.  Sec.                    
          408(d)(4).                                                                  
               At issue in this case is whether the distribution of                   
          petitioner's excess contributions from her First American IRA's             
          made on November 6, 1990, in the amount of $88,000 (i.e.,                   
          $309,534.81 less $221,534.81) qualifies for relief pursuant to              
          section 408(d)(4).                                                          
               In order to qualify for relief under section 408(d)(4), the            
          excess contributions made by petitioner to her First American               
          IRA's must have been received by petitioner on or before August             
          15, 1990, the extended due date for petitioners' 1989 income tax            
          return.  Petitioner received the excess contributions on or about           
          November 6, 1990, almost 3 months after the time prescribed by              
          section 408(d)(4).  Thus, respondent contends that petitioners do           
          not satisfy the requirement in section 408(d)(4)(A) that the                
          distribution of an excess contribution must be received on or               
          before the due date for filing the taxpayer's return for the                
          taxable year of the contribution.8  To the contrary, petitioners            
          contend that they are entitled to relief under section 408(d)(4)            
          based on Wood v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 114 (1989).                          

          8 Respondent does not contend that petitioners failed to                    
          satisfy any of the remaining requirements of sec. 408(d)(4).                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011