James Christian Jensen - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          that respondent has satisfied respondent’s burden of production             
          with respect to that penalty.                                               
               We turn first to the two retirement plan distributions that            
          petitioner received during 1998 and that he did not report as               
          income for that year.  It is petitioner’s position that he was              
          not required to report those distributions as income for the year           
          at issue because he timely transferred, or rolled over, those               
          distributions into an eligible retirement plan.4  In support of             
          his position, petitioner relies on his testimony and two exhib-             
          its.  We are unwilling to accept that evidence as establishing              
          petitioner’s position regarding his retirement plan distribu-               
          tions.  Petitioner’s testimony was general, conclusory, vague,              
          and uncorroborated.  In this connection, petitioner could not               
          even recall what happened to the $132,092.20 that he withdrew               
          from petitioner’s American Savings Bank CD on April 6, 1998.  As            
          for the two exhibits on which petitioner relies, those exhibits             
          show only that on March 3, 1998, petitioner purchased from the              
          Bank a certificate of deposit in the amount of $131,555 and that            
          on April 6, 1998, he withdrew that amount, as well as interest              
          credited thereto.  The record contains no evidence as to what               


               4Although not altogether clear, petitioner may be arguing              
          that he rolled over only the $131,555 retirement plan distribu-             
          tion and not the $42,704 retirement plan distribution. Because              
          the record is not altogether clear on this point, we shall                  
          proceed on the assumption that both of those distributions are at           
          issue in this case.                                                         





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011