Martin v. Commissioner
Opinion
*207 Decision will be entered for respondent in the amounts of $ 3,069.79 for 1989 and $ 3,329.92 for 1990.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOLDBERG,
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for Federal excise taxes under
The issue is whether funds in petitioner's individual retirement accounts (IRA) on December 31, 1989, and December 31, 1990, constitute "excess contributions" under
This case was submitted fully stipulated. All stipulated facts are found accordingly, and the attached exhibits are incorporated by reference. Petitioner resided*208 in Mesquite, Texas, at the time he filed his petition.
At the beginning of 1987, petitioner maintained an IRA with Shearson, Lehman, Hutton, and Co. (Hutton IRA). On February 5, 1987, at petitioner's request, Shearson, Lehman, Hutton, and Co. issued a check payable to him for the entire balance of the Hutton IRA, which was $ 111,615.57.
On the same day, February 5, 1987, after endorsing the check described above, petitioner personally deposited the check at Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith to open an IRA (Merrill Lynch IRA). A withdrawal was made on May 8, 1987, from the Merrill Lynch IRA in the amount of $ 164,596.13. On July 7, 1987, petitioner deposited $ 120,000 into the same Merrill Lynch IRA. Thereafter, on September 3, 1987, petitioner withdrew funds from the Merrill Lynch IRA in the amount of $ 10,000. The last transfer of funds in 1987 took place on December 7, when the entire balance in the Merrill Lynch IRA was transferred to an IRA with Charles Schwab and Co. (Charles Schwab IRA). On November 25, 1988, the balance in the Charles Schwab IRA was transferred to another IRA with Fidelity Investments (Fidelity IRA). 2
*209 On December 31, 1988, the balance in petitioner's Fidelity IRA was $ 58,443; on December 31, 1989, the balance in the Fidelity IRA was $ 72,213.25. In June 1990, petitioner withdrew his funds from the Fidelity IRA, and on September 21, 1990, petitioner deposited $ 60,000 to the Charles Schwab IRA. The balance of the Charles Schwab IRA on December 31, 1990, was $ 61,498.62.
Petitioner's position is that the withdrawal from the Hutton IRA and subsequent deposit to the Merrill Lynch IRA on February 5, 1987, was a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer pursuant to
Respondent's position is that the withdrawal and deposit on February 5, 1987, was a qualified rollover, exempt from taxation under section 408(d)(3)(A)(i). Since the rollover exemption can be used only once during any 1-year period, sec. 408(d)(3)(B), respondent argues that the $ 120,000 deposit on July 7, 1987, was not a qualified rollover, *211 but was an excess contribution to an IRA, a portion of which remained on deposit in the Fidelity IRA at the end of 1989 and in the Charles Schwab IRA at the end of 1990. The characterization of petitioner's February 5, 1987, transaction has already been decided by this Court in
In Martin I, we held that petitioner's February 5, 1987, transaction was not a trustee-to-trustee or direct transfer of funds, but rather was a qualified rollover of petitioner's IRA. Thus, his withdrawal of $ 164,596.13 on May 8, 1987, and another withdrawal of $ 10,000 on September 3, 1987, constituted taxable IRA distributions. A decision was entered in that case in favor of respondent on those taxable distributions.
In
Collateral estoppel serves the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue in a subsequent proceeding and of promoting judicial economy by preventing unnecessary or redundant litigation.
Generally, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to prevent relitigation between the same parties of issues of law that were decided in an earlier proceeding on a different cause of action.
Collateral estoppel also applies to findings of fact that were actually litigated and decided in an earlier proceeding between the same parties and that were essential to the judgment entered in the earlier proceeding.
Because we held in Martin I that petitioner's February 5, 1987, withdrawal and deposit on the same day "was a nontaxable IRA rollover described in section 408(d)(3)", the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies against petitioner, and he cannot relitigate in this case the characterization*214 of the February 5, 1987, transaction. That transaction was held to be a qualified rollover, and we will not revisit that issue. 3
Since the February 5, 1987, transaction was a rollover, the $ 120,000 contribution to the IRA on July 7, 1987, could not constitute a qualified rollover, as petitioner contends, because the contribution was made within 1 year of the previous February 5, 1987, rollover and, therefore, was not allowable under section 408(d)(3)(B). The $ 120,000 contribution on July 7, 1987, therefore, was an excess IRA contribution, a portion of which remained in petitioner's individual retirement accounts at the end of 1989 and 1990.
As applicable here, For purposes of this section, in the case of individual retirement accounts * * * the term "excess contributions" means the sum of -- (1) the excess (if any) of -- (A) the*215 amount contributed for the taxable year to the accounts * * * (other than a rollover contribution * * *) over (B) the amount allowable as a deduction under section 219 for such contributions, and (2) the amount determined under this subsection for the preceding taxable year, reduced by the sum of -- (A) the distributions out of the account for the taxable year which were included in the gross income of the payee under section 408(d)(1). (B) the distributions out of the account for the taxable year to which section 408(d)(5) applies, and (C) the excess (if any) of the maximum amount allowable as a deduction under section 219 for the taxable year over the amount contributed (determined without regard to section 219(f)(6)) to the accounts * * * for the taxable year.
Thus, under
The net balance of petitioner's Fidelity IRA at the end of 1989 was $ 72,213.25. 4 The net balance of the Charles Schwab IRA at the end of 1990 was $ 61,498.62. Petitioner was entitled to an IRA contribution deduction under section 219 in the amount of $ 2,000 for each applicable year; i.e., for 1988 and 1989 in the case of the Fidelity account and for 1988, 1989, and 1990 in the case of the Schwab account. With reductions to the yearend IRA balances for allowable section 219 contributions, as provided by
*217 Therefore, we hold that petitioner is liable for an excise tax under
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. In the stipulation of facts, the parties have not characterized the Dec. 7, 1987, and Nov. 25, 1988, transfers, but we found in
, that those transfers were nontaxable trustee-to-trustee transfers.Martin v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 1993-399↩3. For completeness, we have considered petitioner's arguments with respect to the Feb. 5, 1987, transaction, and find them to be without merit.↩
4. The yearend balances and excess contribution amounts were stipulated by the parties. However, in his reply brief, petitioner contends that the correct ending balance for his IRA in 1989 was $ 58,562. He refers to "document 6" in support of this statement. Since there is no exhibit in evidence with that number, we assume petitioner is referring to the document attached to his reply brief that is so numbered. That document is a copy of an account statement for petitioner's Fidelity IRA for the period Dec. 1, 1988, through Jan. 31, 1989. This statement shows an account balance as of
Jan. 1, 1989↩ , of $ 58,562, and therefore does not reflect an ending balance for 1989, as asserted by petitioner.5. We note that the
sec. 4973 excise taxes determined in the notice of deficiency were $ 3,915 for 1989 and $ 3,570 for 1990, based upon respondent's determination that the taxable excess contributions were $ 70,213.25 for 1989 and $ 59,498.62 for 1990. Consistent with the parties' stipulation, we have found that the taxable excess contributions were $ 68,213.25 for 1989 and $ 55,498.62 for 1990. The difference is explained by respondent's concession that the year-end IRA balances should be reduced undersec. 4973(b)(2)(C)↩ by $ 4,000 for 1989 and $ 6,000 for 1990, to reflect allowable IRA contributions in 1988, 1989, and 1990.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.