- 22 -
tioner does not contend, that she consulted a professional about
the tax treatment of such distributions.16
On the record before us, we find that petitioner did not
have reasonable cause for, and did not act in good faith with
respect to, any portion of the underpayment for her taxable year
2001. See sec. 6664(c)(1); sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioner is liable for her taxable year 2001 for
15(...continued)
in Sun Life’s June 18, 2001 letter and Sun Life’s June 19, 2001
letter Sun Life indicated that “Anne Snyder is entitled to the
death benefit options” and that one of those options was an
“Immediate lump Minimum Death Benefit”, the record shows that
“the death benefit options” available were under decedent’s
annuity contracts. Only a death benefit paid under a life
insurance contract because of the death of the insured is to be
excluded from gross income. Sec. 101(a). If petitioner had
consulted with a professional about the tax treatment of the
respective gross distributions that Sun Life made during 2001
with respect to decedent’s annuity contracts, she would have been
advised that a so-called death benefit paid under an annuity
contract is not to be excluded from gross income because of the
death of the annuity contract holder. See sec. 72.
16It is significant that petitioner failed to call as wit-
nesses at trial (1) the plan administrator to testify about the
respective gross distributions that Sun Life made during 2001
with respect to decedent’s annuity contracts, (2) a representa-
tive of A.G. Edwards to testify about the respective gross
distributions that A.G. Edwards made during 2001 from decedent’s
IRA and petitioner’s IRA, and (3) the accountant who prepared the
2001 joint return to testify about why the respective distribu-
tions made by Sun Life, A.G. Edwards, and American General during
2001 were not reported in that return. We presume that peti-
tioner did not call those witnesses because their respective
testimonies would not have been favorable to petitioner’s posi-
tion in this case. See Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commis-
sioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 514 (10th Cir.
1947).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011