Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McGaugh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

June 26, 2017

Raymond S. McGaugh, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellant.

          Argued February 22, 2017

         Appeal from the United States Tax Court. No. 13665-14 - David Gustaf son, Judge.

          Before Bauer and Williams, Circuit Judges, and DeGuilio, District Judge. [*]

          DeGuilio, District Judge.

         This appeal from the Tax Court addresses whether a taxable distribution occurs where an individual directs his IRA custodian to wire funds directly from his IRA to purchase securities, but his custodian does not accept the resulting share certificate. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the petitioner was never in actual or constructive receipt of funds from his IRA. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.

         I.

         Petitioner Raymond McGaugh has had an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch) since 2002. In summer 2011, he requested that Merrill Lynch use money from that IRA to purchase 7, 500 shares of stock issued by First Personal Financial Corporation (FPFC), a privately held company. For reasons that are not clear from the record, Merrill Lynch would not purchase those shares on McGaugh's behalf. So, McGaugh called Merrill Lynch and initiated a wire transfer of $50, 000 from his IRA directly to FPFC, which occurred on October 7, 2011.

         On November 28, 2011, FPFC issued a stock certificate titled "Raymond McGaugh IRA FBO Raymond McGaugh", which it mailed to Merrill Lynch.[1] Merrill Lynch says it then received this certificate in early 2012 (though FPFC claims to have sent it earlier). After receiving the certificate, Merrill Lynch did not retain it, believing McGaugh's transaction to have impermissibly exceeded the 60-day window applicable to rollovers of IRA assets under 26 U.S.C. § 408(d)(3). Rather, Merrill Lynch attempted to send the certificate to McGaugh twice in February 2012, but the United States Postal Service returned it both times (McGaugh says this is because the certificate was mailed to an incorrect address). On the second occasion, it was marked as "refused." Merrill Lynch then sent the certificate to McGaugh a third time via FedEx and it was not returned. The shares were never deposited into McGaugh's IRA. The location of the share certificate is currently unknown. The IRS contends that McGaugh possesses it, though McGaugh denies that allegation.

         Following these events, Merrill Lynch characterized the wire transfer as a taxable distribution and issued a Form 1099-R. McGaugh claims he never received that form. On March 17, 2014 the IRS issued a notice of deficiency, which indicated that McGaugh had failed to report a $50, 000 distribution for the tax year 2011. It accordingly assessed McGaugh tax due in the amount of $13, 538 and a substantial-tax-understatement penalty of $2, 708.

         McGaugh then filed suit, contending that this was an error. The Tax Court agreed, holding on summary judgment that McGaugh did not take a taxable distribution from his IRA in 2011. The IRS now appeals that decision.

         II.

         The Court of Appeals reviews decisions of the Tax Court "in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury." 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). Accordingly, we review the Tax Court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Musa v. Commissioner, 854 F.3d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2017). As the nonmoving party, we take the facts in the light most favorable to the IRS. See Rabinak v. United Bhd. of Carpenters Pension Fund, 832 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2016).

         The core issue in this case is whether McGaugh made a taxable withdrawal from his retirement account. See 26 U.S.C. § 408(d)(1) (providing that IRA distributions are generally subject to income tax). Though McGaugh never physically received any cash or other assets from his IRA during the 2011 tax year, the IRS nevertheless asserts that McGaugh took such a distribution because he constructively received IRA proceeds.

         Under the doctrine of constructive receipt, a person receives income "not only when paid in hand but also when the economic value is within the taxpayer's control." United States v. Fletcher,562 F.3d 839, 843 (7th Cir. 2009). Constructive receipt thus occurs where income "is credited to [an individual's] account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given. However, income is not constructively received ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.