James Dirks - Page 6

                                         -6-                                          
               Petitioner relies erroneously on Wood v. Commissioner,                 
          supra, in arguing that the distributions are excludable from his            
          gross income even though he failed to meet the 60-day rule.                 
          There, the Court held that the taxpayers’ rollover of stock to an           
          IRA was timely even though the IRA trustee recorded the stock in            
          the wrong account and did not correct this error until                      
          approximately 4 months after the 60-day period expired.  In                 
          holding that the taxpayers had effected a rollover of the                   
          distribution within the 60-day period, the Court noted that the             
          taxpayers had within that period opened up the IRA, delivered the           
          stock to the trustee, instructed the trustee to roll over the               
          stock into the IRA, been assured by the trustee that the rollover           
          would be consummated as instructed, and in fact consummated the             
          rollover.  The Court did not, contrary to petitioner’s assertion,           
          “disregard” the applicable 60-day period to accommodate a                   
          rollover that was made after the 60-day period.                             
               Nor does petitioner rely appropriately on Shotgun Delivery,            
          Inc. v. United States, supra, Prussner v. United States, supra,             
          Am. Air Filter Co. v. Commissioner, supra, and Tipps v.                     
          Commissioner, supra, in arguing that he prevails under the                  
          substantial compliance doctrine.  While petitioner observes                 
          correctly that these cases state that substantial compliance with           
          “regulatory requirements” may suffice in certain circumstances,             
          the 60-day rule is not regulatory but is found in the statute               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011