- 12 -
Transfer Refund, its rollover into petitioner's IRA's, and the
subsequent distributions from petitioner's IRA's. Thus,
petitioners were acutely aware of the requirement of the
operative law; namely, that they actually or constructively
withdraw and receive petitioner's excess contributions from the
IRA's on or before August 15, 1990, in order to avoid the
inclusion of such amounts in petitioners' gross income for 1990.
Petitioner, also like the taxpayer in Wood, did everything
that she could reasonably be expected to do in order to comply
with the law. Although First American Bank's internal procedures
did not provide for the conversion of an IRA into a non-IRA
account by telephone, the First American employee did not advise
petitioner of that policy. Instead, she assured petitioner that
she, the employee, would convert petitioner's accounts within the
requested time frame. Further, the First American employee
assured petitioner that petitioner had done all that was
necessary to accomplish such a conversion.
We found petitioner's testimony concerning petitioner's
instructions to the First American employee and the employee's
agreement to follow those instructions to be credible. The First
American employee represented that petitioner had done everything
necessary to convert her IRA into a non-IRA account, and that the
bank would carry out petitioner's instructions. Petitioner
reasonably relied on that representation. Under these
circumstances, we conclude that petitioner took all steps that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011