- 4 -
days of receipt.2 Sec. 408(d)(3); Smithsi v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1981-652; Handy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-411.
Petitioner argues that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
District Director advised him to file an amended return so that
petitioner could roll over his IRA. On May 23, 1997, petitioner
wrote a letter to the District Director of the IRS in Seattle,
Washington, explaining that petitioner made a mistake closing out
his IRA and requesting authorization to roll over the IRA
withdrawal even though more than 60 days had passed since the
distribution. This letter contains a handwritten note at the
bottom: “Mr. Metcalf: I’m returning this information after
talking to you today. You plan to file a 1040X for 1996.
Thanks. Mr. Johnson 915215.”
This note did not advise petitioner to file an amended
return; it merely acknowledged the fact that petitioner intended
to file an amended return. Even if the IRS had advised
petitioner to file an amended return, the possibility that
petitioner may have received incorrect advice does not alter the
60-day rule. See Smithsi v. Commissioner, supra.
The present case involves the failure to satisfy a
fundamental element of the statutory requirements for an IRA
rollover contribution--namely, the failure to timely roll over
2 Any amount, however, that was required to be distributed
to petitioner because he had reached age 70� would be ineligible
for rollover treatment. Sec. 408(d)(3)(E).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011