Steven Rudolph Kaldi - Page 11
- 10 -
contribution when there has been substantial compliance with--
and the fulfillment of--the remaining requirements of the
statute. See, e.g., Wood v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 114 (1989)
(IRA trustee’s error did not preclude rollover treatment because
taxpayer had substantially complied with statutory requirements).
But such treatment is not common, and the facts here do not
warrant or support a recharacterization. See Schoof v.
Commissioner, supra (nonqualification of IRA trustee was
fundamental defect requiring inclusion of failed rollover into
gross income); Crow v. Commissioner, supra (bank’s
mischaracterization of transaction combined with timing error was
fatal to taxpayer’s argument that the funds should be treated as
In the instant case, petitioner has not demonstrated that he
substantially complied with the rollover provisions outlined in
the statute, nor has he provided us with persusive evidence in
support of his claim that his intent was to open an IRA, rather
than a regular investment account, with Vestin Mortgage.
Accordingly, the Court finds that petitioner did not roll
over the $25,000 into another qualified retirement plan, and the
amount is subject to the section 72(t) additional tax.
C. Additions to Tax
Respondent bears the burden of production with respect to
the additions to tax. See sec. 7491(c); see also, e.g., Swain v.
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: November 10, 2007