- 7 -
With regard to the instant case, we are satisfied that
petitioner read and understood his concession in the stipulation at
the time the stipulation was filed. Petitioner failed to
satisfactorily explain why he should be allowed to contradict the
stipulation;4 thus, petitioner is bound by his own admission.5
Issue 3. 1990 Distribution
The next issue is whether respondent erroneously determined
that petitioner had taxable income in 1990 in the amount of
$408,623 as a result of a distribution from his IRA at USTCNY.
Although petitioner conceded that $408,623 was withdrawn from his
USTCNY IRA in 1990, he testified that he timely rolled these funds
into another qualified retirement account. Respondent asserts that
petitioner failed to roll over the $408,623 into a qualified IRA.
Distributions from qualified retirement plans are generally
includable in the distributee's income in the year of distribution
as provided in section 72. Secs. 402(a)(1), 408(d)(1). An
exception exists if the distribution proceeds are rolled over into
an eligible retirement plan or an IRA within 60 days of the
4 Petitioner is not a stranger to this Court or the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. See
Keenan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-300; Keenan v. United
States, 77 AFTR 2d 96-2116 (D.C. Cal. 1996); Keenan v. IRS, 76
AFTR 2d 95-6624, 95-2 USTC par. 50,527 (D.C. Cal. 1995).
5 Moreover, the record is sufficient for the Court to
sustain respondent's determination that petitioner had $205,000
of taxable income as a result of a distribution from his USTCNY
IRA.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011