- 9 -
petitioner received no cash. Lemishow, therefore, is not on
point.5
Nor do we find any significance in the fact that S.K. did
not immediately deliver the shares to Pershing. In this regard,
we point out again that we are not dealing directly with the 60-
day limitation on a rollover of a distribution under section
408(d)(3). Rather, we are concerned with whether the delayed
transfer of the stock certificate alters our conclusion that
there was no distribution from the IRA to petitioner. At all
times, the IRA, not the petitioner, was the owner of the shares
even though it may not have been in physical possession of the
stock certificate.
Furthermore, to the extent that this fact is relevant, the
failure of S.K. to deliver the stock certificate would not
invalidate the transaction. In Wood v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 114
(1989), we held that a bookkeeping error by the trustee of an
IRA, which resulted in a portion of a rollover distribution from
another qualified plan not being credited to the IRA account
within the applicable period, did not preclude the rollover. We
noted that “a bookkeeping error does not alter the rights and
responsibilities between parties to a transaction.” Id. at 121.
While the question here is somewhat different, we believe that
5 Similarly, respondent’s reliance on Bunney v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 259 (2000), and Darby v. Commissioner, 97
T.C. 51 (1991), is misplaced.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011