-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