- 8 -
PETITIONER: That was my IRA, designated as my IRA.
THE COURT: Okay. Now at some point or other
presumably you would have need for your IRA, correct?
PETITIONER: * * * Instead of drawing it out from
Fidelity, I’m drawing it out from MHI.
* * * * * * *
PETITIONER: * * * in addition to the increase in
money received because of the rent from Fidelity if I
was making eight percent, I’m making ten or 12 here,
plus there’s a good share that when that property is
sold there will be a capital appreciation at least of
$10,000, so that was a good investment.
* * * * * * *
PETITIONER: * * * All I know is that it’s [the
agreement between petitioner and MHI] designated in the
corporate files and on that file that it’s my IRA.
* * * * * * *
PETITIONER: * * * We don’t have a written
agreement. If I set up something like this, she would
say okay, you’re the father. You do it. But, she has
no legal obligation to do anything that I say.[9]
9 Petitioner corroborates this description of the Veazie
property-IRA arrangement in his letter to the Internal Revenue
Service dated May 23, 2000, which stated, in part, as follows:
I was not pleased with the return I was getting from
Fidelity. On the Veazie Street investment, with a
purchase price of $52,250 invested, I, with the rental
income, am making over 18% per year in interest, and
have a good opportunity for capital gains when the
property is sold. This certainly is a lot better than
what I was getting at Fidelity. This whole transaction
is recorded in the corporate records as an IRA
investment from me.
The $2,252.85 difference between the purchase price of
$52,250.00 and the $49,997.15 transfer from Fidelity is
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011