- 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