- 5 -
day period. This Court held that the bookkeeping error did not
preclude the rollover. However, in Rodoni v. Commissioner, 105
T.C. 29, 38-39 (1995), we noted that
Where the requirements of a statute relate to the
substance or essence of the statute, they must be rigidly
observed. On the other hand, if the requirements are
procedural or directory in that they do not go to the
essence of the thing to be done, but rather are given with a
view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be
fulfilled by substantial compliance. [Citations omitted.]
See also Schoof v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 1, 11 (1998); Reese v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-346; Orgera v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-575.
There was no substantial compliance here. While petitioner
maintained an IRA with Merrill Lynch, the distribution was not
transferred to that account, and the monthly statement clearly
shows that this was the fact. This was not a bookkeeping error
on the part of Merrill Lynch. Furthermore, even if there were an
error, that error quickly could have been remedied by petitioner
when he received the monthly statement for either October or
November. Petitioner, however, did not make any effort to remedy
the alleged error. We sustain respondent’s determination.
Unreported Interest Income
Petitioner did not report $117 that was credited to his
savings account by Hibernia National Bank during 1998. As we
understand, petitioner contends that, since the money was not
actually withdrawn by him, it was not taxable. Section 1.451-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011