- 13 -
challenge decedent's representations regarding the pension
distribution, and allowed the period of limitations for 1990 to
expire.
(3) Decedent’s Change of Position or Representation for 1993
With respect to the third element regarding a change in the
taxpayer's prior representation, petitioner argues that decedent
never made a representation of fact from which an inconsistency
may arise. Decedent represented that the 1990 pension
distribution was timely rolled over on her 1990 return. In this
case, petitioner claims that $100,502.21 of the pension
distribution was not timely rolled over. These positions are
inconsistent, and petitioner's position in this case constitutes
a change in a prior representation.
Petitioner also argues that there was no detriment to the
Commissioner from the alleged inconsistent reporting of the 1990
pension distribution. In this regard, petitioner argues that
respondent has failed to show that decedent received a tax
windfall from the prior representation that a timely rollover
occurred. Petitioner suggests that the portion of the 1990
pension distribution deposited with GNA may have been nontaxable
for some reason other than tax-deferred rollover treatment. For
example, petitioner contends that the pension distribution may
have consisted of after-tax employee contributions that are not
taxable upon distribution. Petitioner's contention on this point
is nothing more than supposition. Petitioner did not offer any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011