James Joseph Timmerman - Page 6




                                        - 5 -                                         
               Petitioner timely filed his 1998 return without reporting              
          the income as reflected on the Form 1099-R, and claimed Federal             
          income tax withheld of $7,799.43.  Petitioner received a refund             
          of $7,910.85 for his Federal income tax for 1998.                           
               Respondent issued a notice of deficiency determining that              
          petitioner received income of $77,994.31.  The derivation and the           
          computation of the amount reported on Form 1099-R by American               
          Century Services are not in dispute.  The only question is                  
          whether this amount is includable in petitioner’s gross income              
          for 1998.                                                                   
               Petitioner contends that the distribution is not subject to            
          tax because it was a “trustee-to-trustee” or “institution-to-               
          institution” transfer.  It appears that petitioner further                  
          contends that he received the distribution from Martin’s plan as            
          the administrator of the estate, rather than the beneficiary.  We           
          disagree with both of petitioner’s arguments.                               
               Respondent’s determination is presumed correct, and                    
          petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent’s                    
          determination is erroneous.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290           
          U.S. 111, 115 (1933).2                                                      

               2    Because petitioner failed to introduce any credible               
          evidence, he failed to meet the requirements of sec. 7491(a), as            
          amended, so as to place the burden of proof on respondent with              
          respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining liability             
          for the tax deficiency in issue.  As to the accuracy-related                
          penalty, we find that respondent has satisfied his burden of                
                                                             (continued...)           





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011