- 11 -
scheme. Additionally, even if the two statutes could be
interpreted to afford similar latitude for equitable relief, the
equities in petitioners’ scenario bear insufficient resemblance
to those portrayed in Doing v. Commissioner, supra. The evidence
in that case clearly vindicated the taxpayer, showing both
faultlessness and vigilance by means of his specific written
instructions to the financial institution and his immediate
attempts to correct the subsequent error.
Petitioners, in contrast, offered testimony of only a
“recollection” of a request that Fidelity withdraw the $20,000
amount from the account of Howard T. Owens, Jr., coupled with an
admission of failure or inadvertence “for some reason” to look at
the account statement reflecting the distribution. They also
never made any prompt and concrete attempt to take remedial
action.
In conclusion, although the Court is sympathetic to
petitioners’ predicament, the circumstances of this case afford
no basis upon which petitioners may be relieved of the 10-percent
additional tax imposed under section 72(t). The Court holds that
petitioners are liable for the additional tax in the amount of
$2,000.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011