Dennis W. Farley, Jr. and Janice J. Farley - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         

          this figure to $80,000.  The amortized growth rate petitioner               
          used to determine the value of his accounts 30.4 years hence was            
          29 percent per year.4  The sole purpose of this process was to              
          determine the maximum amount that could be distributed to                   
          petitioner from his qualified plans that would avoid imposition             
          of the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t) and would              
          satisfy the provisions of section 72(t)(2)(A)(iv).                          
               Petitioner used the 29-percent annual growth rate by                   
          analyzing the performances of various mutual funds and their                
          rates of return over a given period of years.  From a group of 83           
          funds, he selected seven mutual funds in which he would invest              
          his IRA account funds.  Using rates of return for these funds               
          that he obtained from the Internet, petitioner took the                     
          cumulative return of each of the seven funds, which he divided by           
          the relevant number of years to arrive at that fund’s average               
          annual return.  He used data dating back 5 years for five of the            
          funds, 3 years for one fund, and 1 year for another fund.                   
          Petitioner then added up these averages and divided by seven,               
          resulting in an overall average annual return of 34.65 percent              


               4    At trial, petitioner introduced a schedule based on an            
          assumed life expectancy of 27 years for purposes of calculating             
          his periodic distribution amount.  However, respondent pointed              
          out, and petitioner did not dispute, that petitioner actually               
          used a life expectancy factor of 30.4 years as set forth in Table           
          V of sec. 1.72-9, Income Tax Regs.  Respondent did not challenge            
          petitioner’s use of a life-expectancy factor of 30.4 years.                 





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011