- 5 -
first Star Bank IRA on February 26, 1996, and did not make a
contribution to the second Star Bank IRA until April 30, 1996, 64
days later. Petitioner offered inconsistent testimony and
explanations as to why the contribution was made 4 days after the
expiration of the rollover period.5 The only facts in the record
show that the contribution was made more than 60 days after the
date of distribution. For this reason, the distribution does not
qualify as a rollover distribution, and it must be included in
petitioner’s gross income. See sec. 408(d)(1), (3).
Petitioner does not argue that the remaining $7,010
distribution was rolled over or is otherwise not includable in
her gross income. Therefore, we find that petitioner must
4(...continued)
Petitioner did not introduce any evidence to substantiate the
alleged rollover, nor is it consistent with the facts. The only
IRA distribution she received before the alleged rollover was
$7,000 on Feb. 26, 1996. Thus, she only had $7,000 available to
roll over (the amount of the alleged Star Bank rollover), and we
do not consider the alleged T. Rowe Price rollover further.
5 Petitioner testified that if the bank received an IRA
rollover request after 3 p.m. on a Friday, the rollover would not
be reflected in the account until the following Monday. Even if
such a situation could offer petitioner relief from the 60-day
requirement, it would not do so in this case. At times,
petitioner testified that she made the rollover request on Apr.
25, 1996 (a Thursday), and at other times, she testified that she
made the request on Apr. 26, 1996 (a Friday). To be consistent
with her explanation of the delay, the request would have been
made on Friday, Apr. 26, 1996. If that were the case, the
rollover would have been reflected in her account on the
following Monday, Apr. 29, 1996. It was not reflected in the
account until Tuesday, Apr. 30, 1996.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011