                         T.C. Memo. 2003-249



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              JAMES CHRISTIAN JENSEN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 12930-01.                Filed August 19, 2003.



     James Christian Jensen, pro se.

     Paul K. Voelker, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     CHIECHI, Judge:    Respondent determined a $106,445 deficiency

in, and a $21,287.60 accuracy-related penalty under section

6662(a)1 on, petitioner’s Federal income tax for 1998.


     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                - 2 -

      The issues remaining for decision are:

      (1) Is petitioner required to include in his gross income

for the year at issue certain distributions from his retirement

plan (retirement plan distributions) that he received during that

year?   We hold that he is.

      (2) Is petitioner entitled for the year at issue to a

deduction for a claimed loss with respect to his radiology

practice?   We hold that he is not.

      (3) Is petitioner liable for the year at issue for the 10-

percent additional tax under section 72 with respect to his

retirement plan distributions that he received during that year?

We hold that he is.

      (4) Is petitioner liable for the year at issue for the

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)?   We hold that he

is.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

      Many of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

      At the time he filed the petition in this case, petitioner

resided in Henderson, Nevada.

      During 1998, petitioner received from Vanguard Fiduciary

Trust Co. (Vanguard) two retirement plan distributions in the

amounts of $131,555 ($131,555 retirement plan distribution) and

$42,704 ($42,704 retirement plan distribution), respectively.

Vanguard issued to petitioner Form 1099-R, Distributions From
                               - 3 -

Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs,

Insurance Contracts, etc. (Form 1099-R), with respect to each of

those distributions.

     On March 3, 1998, petitioner deposited the $131,5552 retire-

ment plan distribution that he received from Vanguard into a

certificate of deposit in his name at American Savings Bank in

Honolulu, Hawaii (Bank).   (We shall refer to that certificate of

deposit as petitioner’s American Savings Bank CD.)   On March 31

and April 2, 1998, the Bank credited petitioner’s American

Savings Bank CD with interest of $501.71 and $34.60, respec-

tively.   On April 6, 1998, petitioner withdrew the entire balance

of $132,092.20 from petitioner’s American Savings Bank CD.

     For an undisclosed period of time, petitioner, who received

a medical degree, operated a radiology practice.   On May 25,

1997, that practice was closed.

     Petitioner timely filed Form 1040EZ, Income Tax Return for

Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents (return), for his

taxable year 1998.   That return reported no income and no tax

liability and claimed no prepayment credits.

     Respondent issued a notice of deficiency (notice) to peti-


     2
      The actual amount that petitioner deposited into peti-
tioner’s American Savings Bank CD was $131,555.89. One of the
Forms 1099-R that Vanguard issued to petitioner for 1998 showed a
retirement plan distribution of $131,555. The record does not
explain the 89-cent discrepancy between the $131,555.89 deposited
into the American Savings Bank CD and the $131,555 retirement
plan distribution shown in Form 1099-R issued to petitioner.
                                 - 4 -

tioner with respect to his taxable year 1998.    In that notice,

respondent determined, inter alia, that petitioner is required to

include in his gross income the two retirement plan distributions

totaling $174,333 that he received from Vanguard during that

year.    Respondent also determined in the notice that petitioner

is liable for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72 with

respect to those distributions.    Respondent further determined in

the notice that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related

penalty under section 6662(a).

                                OPINION

     Respondent does not dispute that section 7491 applies in the

instant case.    With respect to section 7491(a), respondent

maintains that petitioner has not complied with section

7491(a)(2)(B) and that therefore the burden of proof with respect

to respondent’s deficiency determination for the year at issue

does not shift to respondent.    On the instant record, we agree

with respondent.    With respect to section 7491(c), respondent has

the burden of production with respect to the accuracy-related

penalty under section 6662(a) that respondent determined in the

notice.    Petitioner failed to report as part of his gross income

for 1998 the two retirement plan distributions that he received

from Vanguard during that year.3    On the instant record, we find



     3
      We note that petitioner concedes that he received certain
dividend income during the year at issue.
                                   - 5 -

that respondent has satisfied respondent’s burden of production

with respect to that penalty.

       We turn first to the two retirement plan distributions that

petitioner received during 1998 and that he did not report as

income for that year.       It is petitioner’s position that he was

not required to report those distributions as income for the year

at issue because he timely transferred, or rolled over, those

distributions into an eligible retirement plan.4      In support of

his position, petitioner relies on his testimony and two exhib-

its.       We are unwilling to accept that evidence as establishing

petitioner’s position regarding his retirement plan distribu-

tions.       Petitioner’s testimony was general, conclusory, vague,

and uncorroborated.       In this connection, petitioner could not

even recall what happened to the $132,092.20 that he withdrew

from petitioner’s American Savings Bank CD on April 6, 1998.         As

for the two exhibits on which petitioner relies, those exhibits

show only that on March 3, 1998, petitioner purchased from the

Bank a certificate of deposit in the amount of $131,555 and that

on April 6, 1998, he withdrew that amount, as well as interest

credited thereto.       The record contains no evidence as to what



       4
      Although not altogether clear, petitioner may be arguing
that he rolled over only the $131,555 retirement plan distribu-
tion and not the $42,704 retirement plan distribution. Because
the record is not altogether clear on this point, we shall
proceed on the assumption that both of those distributions are at
issue in this case.
                               - 6 -

happened to the $132,092.20 that petitioner withdrew from peti-

tioner’s American Savings Bank CD on April 6, 1998.   On the

record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his

burden of establishing that he timely transferred, or rolled

over, the retirement plan distributions in question into an

eligible retirement plan.   On that record, we sustain respon-

dent’s determination to include those distributions in peti-

tioner’s gross income for the year at issue.

     We turn next to petitioner’s claim that he is entitled for

1998 to a deduction for a claimed loss with respect to his

radiology practice.   Although we are satisfied from the record

that petitioner’s radiology practice was closed on May 25, 1997,

no reliable evidence in the record explains why that practice was

closed.   In fact, the record does not even establish whether

petitioner carried on his radiology practice in corporate form,

in partnership form with one or more other physicians, or as a

sole proprietor.   In addition, much of the documentation on which

petitioner relies to support his claimed loss for 1998 relates to

years other than 1998.5   On the record before us, we find that

petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he



     5
      One of the documents upon which petitioner relies to sup-
port his claimed loss for the year at issue is a self-serving,
uncorroborated document prepared by petitioner, in which he
listed various items that he contends were related to his radiol-
ogy practice and various dollar amounts with respect to such
items.
                                 - 7 -

is entitled for the year at issue to a deduction for his claimed

loss with respect to his radiology practice.

     We turn now to the 10-percent additional tax under section

72(t) that respondent determined for the year at issue with

respect to the retirement plan distributions that petitioner

received from Vanguard during that year.    Petitioner acknowledges

that if the Court were to find that he must include those distri-

butions in his gross income for the year at issue, he is liable

for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72.   We have

found that petitioner is required to include in his gross income

for the year at issue the retirement plan distributions in

question.   On the record before us, we find that petitioner is

liable for the 10-percent additional tax.

     We turn finally to the accuracy-related penalty under

section 6662(a).   Petitioner acknowledges that if the Court were

to find that he must include the retirement plan distributions in

question in his gross income for the year at issue and that he is

not entitled to a deduction for his claimed loss with respect to

his radiology practice, he is liable for the accuracy-related

penalty under section 6662(a).    We have found that petitioner is

required to include in his gross income for the year at issue

those distributions and that he is not entitled for that year to

any such deduction.   On the record before us, we find that

petitioner is liable for the year at issue for the accuracy-
                              - 8 -

related penalty.

     We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of

petitioner that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be

without merit and/or irrelevant.

     To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties,


                                        Decision will be entered

                                   under Rule 155.
