Susan F. Mostafa - Page 5

                                        - 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                  

          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