Fordham Law’s Tax Clinic won a victory for a client whose hardship waiver for an IRA rollover had been denied by the IRS. Tax Notes Today reported on the case.
John Trimmer began suffering from major depression following his retirement as a New York City police officer, rendering him unable to manage his financial affairs, the Tax Court opinion stated. In July 2011 he received two distributions from his retirement accounts and deposited them into a joint bank account he held with his wife, but he didn’t roll them over into another qualified retirement account within the 60-day period required under section 402(c)(3)(A). Trimmer’s tax return preparer, noticing that Trimmer’s Form 1099-Rs showed the distributions as early distributions, advised him to deposit the amounts into an IRA. Trimmer did so in April 2012 after the preparer filed the return, which reported the two distributions as nontaxable. During the IRS’s examination of the Trimmers’ 2011 return, the couple requested by letter a hardship waiver from the rollover requirement, which the IRS “summarily denied,” the court wrote. The IRS determined that the Trimmers owed about $40,000 in additional taxes for failing to report taxable retirement income and were liable for an additional 10 percent tax on early distributions from a qualified plan under section 72(t). The IRS argued that its examination division lacked the authority to consider the requested relief under section 402(c)(3)(B) and that even if it had that authority, its exercise of discretion in denying a hardship waiver is not subject to judicial review.
…
Petitioners’ counsel, a member of the Fordham Law School Clinic, represents that the lateness of the report was due to a variety of causes, including limitations and scheduling problems of an academic clinic. While we do not take missed deadlines lightly, upon due consideration of all the circumstances and the parties’ arguments, we are satisfied there was good cause for the missed deadline.
…
Ms. Ho is a licensed master social worker (LMSW) in New York, a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) in California, and a clinical professor of law and a supervising social worker at the Fordham University School of Law. She opined that Mr. Trimmer suffered from major depressive disorder during portions of 2011 and 2012. Petitioners offered Ms. Ho’s testimony and report to support their argument that Mr. Trimmer is entitled to a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement under section 402(c)(3)(B). At trial Ms. Ho’s report was marked as an exhibit and her testimony was heard solely as an offer of proof; the Court deferred ruling on respondent’s motion in limine to allow the parties an opportunity to further address the matter in their posttrial briefs. We now examine respondent’s various objections and determine whether this testimony is admissible. We conclude that it is admissible, for the reasons discussed below.
…
Having found Ms. Ho’s testimony relevant, we turn to the requirement of rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that the proposed expert be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Ms. Ho is a candidate for a doctorate in social work at New York University. She has a master’s degree in social work from the University of Southern California. She holds licenses as an LCSW in California and as an LMSW in New York. She is also a clinical professor of law and supervising social worker at the Fordham University School of Law. Before her time at Fordham and New York University, Ms. Ho worked in a wide variety of clinical social work positions in California, where she participated regularly in assessing and treating patients.
After careful consideration of her experience, education, and licenses, we conclude that Ms. Ho is qualified to offer expert testimony on Mr. Trimmer’s mental health history.
…
Petitioners’ counsel, a member of the Fordham Law School Clinic, represents that the lateness of the report was due to a variety of causes, including limitations and scheduling problems of an academic clinic. While we do not take missed deadlines lightly, upon due consideration of all the circumstances and the parties’ arguments, we are satisfied there was good cause for the missed deadline.