- 13 -
IRA because bank’s acknowledgment did not meet the statutory
requirements of sec. 408).
In the petition, petitioner states that the IRA distribution
is not taxable because “the taxpayers’ demonstrated that they
intended to hold and administer the property acquired by the
rollover in such a manner as to comply with * * * [section
408(a)(2)] to the best of their ability.”15 At trial, petitioner
adamantly asserted that his Fidelity IRA was transferred directly
to his Veazie property-IRA via a trustee-to-trustee transfer and,
therefore, that the transfer was not taxable. We need not, and
do not, make a determination whether petitioner’s transaction was
either a rollover contribution or a trustee-to-trustee transfer
because we conclude that petitioner’s Veazie property-IRA is not
a valid IRA within the meaning of section 408(a).
In the present case, petitioner directed that his Fidelity
IRA distribution be transferred to his Veazie property-IRA. The
record is replete with petitioner’s conclusory and self-serving
testimony regarding the purported validity of his Veazie
property-IRA. However, petitioner candidly admitted at trial
that no such written agreement regarding his Veazie property-IRA
exists, but that such a designation exists in MHI’s corporate
15 Sec. 408(a)(2) provides: “The trustee is a bank (as
defined in subsection (n)) or such other person who demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the manner in which
such other person will administer the trust will be consistent
with the requirements of this section.”
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011