-4-
stated that petitioner had during 2000 received $118,000 in
distributions from the first IRA and that these distribution were
taxable in full. Petitioner did not report the $118,000 on his
2000 Federal income tax return (2000 tax return). The 2000 tax
return was timely received by respondent’s service center for
filing on August 17, 2001.
OPINION
We decide whether petitioner’s receipt of the $118,000 is
excludable from his 2000 gross income. Petitioner argues it is.
Petitioner concedes that he paid these funds into the second IRA
more than 60 days after he received them but asserts that he
meets the 60-day rule by virtue of the “equitable doctrine of
substantial compliance”. Petitioner supports his assertion, for
which he bears the burden of proof,3 see Hamilton v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1954-118, affd. per curiam 232 F.2d 891
(6th Cir. 1956); cf. Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial
Workers Intl. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1997),
primarily with citations to Shotgun Delivery, Inc. v. United
States, 269 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2001), Prussner v. United States,
896 F.2d 218 (7th Cir. 1990), Wood v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 114
3 Given that petitioner makes no claim that respondent bears
the burden of proof under sec. 7491(a), we conclude that sec.
7491(a) has no applicability to this case. See, e.g., sec.
7491(b) (sec. 7491(a) applies with respect to an issue only if
the taxpayer meets certain requirements). We note, however,
that we decide this issue without resort to which party bears the
burden of proof.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011