- 8 - that the funds in question had an average rate of return of 23.01 percent rather than the 34.65 percent claimed by petitioner. Petitioner admitted at trial to having made the computational errors claimed by respondent in calculating the average rates of return. However, he argued that he did not intend for the money in his IRA accounts to remain invested in those seven funds indefinitely. Rather, he intended to maintain investments in funds that were performing to his satisfaction. He stated: “I don’t leave the money in the same mutual fund all the time. I move it to whoever is doing the best job at any given time. Money is portable. So I can take it out of fund A and put it in fund B.” He further explained: ”the idea is to stay on top of the situation enough so you move your money to the funds that are performing.” Petitioner also admitted that the funds he selected in 1995 did not all continue to earn a rate of return higher than 29 percent. However, he argued that such a rate was still sustainable and gave current examples of high performance funds. At trial, petitioner was invested in only one of the original seven funds considered in calculating the periodic withdrawal amount. He attributed this to having followed the approach of moving money around when necessary to maximize his rate of return to try to attain the growth-rate percentage used in calculating the amount of allowable distribution that could be made each year.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011