- 5 -
additional tax. Petitioner argues that the entire distribution
she received from her IRA was an amount received on or after the
death of Mr. Campbell.4 We note that this Court has not
previously decided whether an IRA distribution retains its
character as a distribution to a beneficiary “on or after the
death of an employee” if the distribution is of funds that were
rolled over to the IRA upon the employee’s death.
Respondent argues that once petitioner as surviving spouse
decided to maintain the funds in an account in her own name as
owner of the IRA, she became the owner of the IRA “for all
purposes of the Code,” relying upon section 1.408-8, Q&A-5 and 7,
Income Tax Regs. Petitioner counters that the funds from her
deceased husband’s IRA did not lose their character as funds from
her deceased husband’s IRA. Even though petitioner rolled over
the funds from her deceased husband’s IRA into her separate IRA,
petitioner did not make any additional contributions after her
husband died and also did not “redesignate” the account as her
own. See sec. 1.408-8, A-5(b), Income Tax Regs. We agree with
respondent.
We find that petitioner received the distribution from her
own IRA, not from an IRA of which she was a beneficiary on or
after the death of an employee. We further find that the source
of the amount received, whether originating from her deceased
husband’s IRA or petitioner’s own contributions, is irrelevant.
We recognize that petitioner may not have technically
4Petitioner specifically argues that the distribution was of
funds she inherited from her deceased husband’s IRA. We use the
statutory language rather than the vernacular petitioner uses.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011