Joseph W. Evans, Jr. and Mildred S. Evans - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
               By letter dated February 29, 1996, respondent mailed to                
          petitioners proposed stipulations of fact.  Respondent's letter             
          read, in part:                                                              
                    In considering what additional documents would be                 
               helpful to resolve these matters, bear in mind that you                
               have to provide to the Court's satisfaction that you                   
               paid each of the items disallowed by the Internal                      
               Revenue Service and that these represent deductible                    
               expenses, that is, that there was a valid business                     
               purpose.  Generally, source documents such as cancelled                
               checks, invoices and contemporaneously maintained notes                
               will help corroborate oral testimony.  Travelling                      
               expenses, including meals and lodging while away from                  
               home, are subject to a more rigorous substantiation                    
               requirement under I.R.C. � 274.  These expenses require                
               what is referred to as "adequate records" or by                        
               "sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayers own                   
               statement" concerning (1) the amount of the expense;                   
               (2) the time and place of the travel; (3) the business                 
               purpose of the expense; and (4) the business                           
               relationship to the taxpayer of persons entertained.                   
               I.R.C. � 274(d).  To guide you, we have enclosed                       
               pertinent excerpts from the I.R.C. � 274 regulations.                  
                    Concerning the proposed l0% tax for the individual                
               retirement account distribution under I.R.C. � 72(t),                  
               you are correct in that one of the exceptions is where                 
               the distributions are part of a series of substantially                
               equal periodic payments (not less frequently than                      
               annually) made over the life expectancy of the employee                
               of the joint lives of the employee and a designated                    
               beneficiary.  I.R.C. � 72(t)(2)(A)(iv).  In order to                   
               review this issue, we need documents reflecting the                    
               transfer of funds into the Twentieth Century and                       
               Donald, Lufkin & Jenrette accounts which established                   
               the individual retirement accounts, worksheets that you                
               prepared (or an explanation) concerning your                           
               determination of the period over which the periodic                    
               payments would be made and the statements reflecting                   
               the periodic payments that were made from the date                     
               first made to the present.  In this regard, please note                
               that under I.R.C. � 72(t)(4), if the distributions are                 
               modified in the first five years such that I.R.C. �                    
               72(t)(2)(A)(iv) no longer applies, then the tax (plus                  
               interest) retroactively applies.  I.R.C. � 72(t)(4)(A).                
               We need to see the documents between 1993 and the                      
               present to ensure that the distributions still qualify                 
               for the exception.  For your consideration, enclosed is                
               a copy of Notice 89-25, 1989-1 C.B. 662 which discusses                

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011