- 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 a rollover). 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: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007