                               T.C. Memo. 2016-210



                         UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                    BARRY R. SKOG, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 21720-13.                          Filed November 17, 2016.


      Barry R. Skog, pro se.

      Jeremy J. Eggerth, for respondent.



                           MEMORANDUM OPINION


      HOLMES, Judge: Barry Skog claims that out of fear for his daughter’s

financial future he withdrew money from his wife’s IRA during their divorce. He

also claims that he rolled it over into an account for the daughter’s benefit in some
                                       -2-

[*2] way that qualified as tax-free.1 The Commissioner disagrees because the

money seems to have disappeared.

                                   Background

      Skog is a Minnesota resident, and we set the case for trial in St. Paul. The

Commissioner proposed a stipulation under Tax Court Rule 91. When Skog

didn’t respond, we deemed the Commissioner’s proposed facts stipulated. The

parties then agreed to submit the case for decision under Tax Court Rule 122,

which prevented a trial.

      The stipulation shows that Skog made withdrawals from his wife’s IRA in

2011 that totaled nearly $45,000. Skog claims that he moved this money into the

Norvin A. Skog Irrevocable Trust (Trust), and that his daughter is the Trust’s

beneficiary. The Trust’s paperwork, however, does not name her as a beneficiary.

The Commissioner also subpoenaed the Trust’s investment account records. They

show some fluctuation in value and some withdrawals, but no deposits during

2011. We don’t know where the money went, but these records show that it didn’t

go to the Trust.




      1
        The Skogs don’t challenge the other items of unreported income in the
notice of deficiency, or the imposition of a substantial-understatement penalty
under 26 U.S.C. section 6662(a) and (b)(2).
                                         -3-

[*3]                                  Discussion

       Section 408(d) of the Internal Revenue Code governs distributions from

qualified retirement plans such as IRAs. Skog is correct that a distribution need

not be included in gross income if it falls within the “rollover” exception. This

exception requires that the amount rolled over go into another qualifying

retirement account within 60 days of its distribution, and that this rollover account

be for the benefit of the individual for whom the original account was maintained.

See 26 U.S.C. sec. 408(d)(3)(A), (D); Schoof v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 1, 7

(1998).

       Skog did not show where the money went. If, contrary to the subpoenaed

records, it did go into the Trust’s account, there is no evidence that it went there

within 60 days of any of the distributions or that the Trust’s account was a

qualifying retirement account. And by Skog’s own admission, the Trust account

was for the benefit of his daughter and not his soon-to-be ex-wife.



                                               Decision will be entered for

                                        respondent.
