-14-
for 2001; i.e., SBC 1, 2, 3. We also note that the payment for
2005 was distributed from still a different account.
Petitioners attempt to explain away these problems.
Petitioner testified that the balance of his SBC account of
$136,138.89 was rolled over to the OCTFCU in late October or
November of 2002 and, thereafter, was maintained separately in
that account. He testified: "they [the two accounts] were
together, but they were separate because they have a sub-code
that differentiates accounts." However, there is no evidence of
that in the record, other than petitioner's vague and self-
serving testimony.
Petitioner also testified that the change in amounts was due
to the "One-time change to required minimum distribution method"
permitted by Rev. Rul. 2002-62, sec. 2.03(b), quoted above.
However, under the required minimum distribution method, the
annual payment is recomputed each year on the basis of the
account balance and the life expectancy for that year. It would
be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for the minimum
distribution for 2003, 2004, and 2005 to equal the same exact
amount; i.e., $12,000. At trial, petitioner stated that he had
no documentation of his calculation of those amounts.
The most serious difficulty we have with petitioners'
position is that the record does not establish "the taxpayer's
account balance", as that phrase is used in Notice 89-25, supra,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008