Credit Morningstar for publicizing this doozy of a case!

A tax lawyer and partner in an established law firm personally made two IRA-to-IRA rollovers in a 12-month period. He did so in reliance on an IRS publication which advises that a taxpayer can do so if no single IRA is involved in more than one rollover. Unfortunately, the applicable provision of the Internal Revenue Code permits only one rollover per taxpayer in any 12-month period. The IRS audited the lawyer’s tax return and disallowed one of his two rollovers which would trigger current tax on the entire amount of the disallowed rollover. The lawyer’s defense was a statement in an IRS publication that rollovers were limited on a per IRA basis.

The Tax Court decided the matter in favor of the IRS position on audit and held that IRS publications intended to provide coherent explanations of the tax laws are not binding on the IRS. The Court further expounded that taxpayers “rely on IRS guidance at their own peril.” The case is Bobrow v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2014-21).

In response to the Bobrow decision, the IRS has revised Publication 590-A which was the publication that misled Mr. Bobrow.

If a tax lawyer can be misled by IRS publications, what chance does the average taxpayer stand in getting reliable information from the IRS? The answer for those who contact the IRS with specific questions about their taxes is “proceed at your peril.” Only about 25 percent of IRS taxpayer inquiries are answered correctly. Also note that lawyers routinely rely on IRS publications as reliable condensations of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. We expect such publications to accurately express the IRS position on tax matters (they are not balanced commentaries on any contested tax issues).

The facts in the _Bobrow _case suggest an additional approach. Bearing in mind that a “rollover” is defined as a two-step transfer from one IRA to another. The first step is a distribution to the individual IRA owner. The second step is the transfer of the distributed funds by the individual to the recipient IRA within 60 days. But a direct transfer from one IRA to another IRA (which the IRS calls a “trustee-to-trustee transfer”) is not a “rollover” (see Rev. Rul. 78-406). Such direct transfers are not subject to the one-rollover-per-year rule. Similarly, the one-rollover-per-year rule does not apply to qualified retirement plan transfers to IRAs (and vice versa) as well as retirement plan to plan transfers.

TAKEAWAY:

Direct transfers can take the place of a rollover with less complication and no annual limit on the number of transactions. It is safer and easier to do a direct transfer whenever possible.

Andrew S. Williams has practiced in the employee benefits and ERISA arena since ERISA was passed in 1974. He has been recognized by his peers through a survey conducted by Leading Lawyers Network as among the top 5 percent of Illinois lawyers in Small, Closely and Privately Held Business Law and Employee Benefit Law. He maintains a website, www.BenefitsLawGroupofChicago.com, with additional updates, commentary and analysis on benefits and employment topics.

The above material is intended for general information purposes and should not be relied on or construed as professional advice. Under the applicable Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, the contents of this e-mail may be considered to be attorney advertising. The transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

In Brief:  A plaintiff cannot sue for infringement on a disclaimed claim.

The Big Beautiful Bill is being advertised as a haven for social security benefits by eliminating income tax on it. There are a few conditions that one must reach before the tax is offset including age restrictions and qualifying income amounts. Read more about this potential tax benefit.

In Brief:  A plaintiff need not exactly describe its trade secrets at trial.

In Brief: Beverly Berneman's blog discusses the USPTO's recent termination of over 52,000 trademarks.

As technology rapidly advances cybercriminals have more opportunities to steal information. Using AI deepfakes, voicemails, and ransomware attacks, cybercriminals can pose as individuals to gain access to personal 401(K) documents, accounts, or company information. In his article, Andrew Williams stresses the importance of cybersecurity and what companies and individuals can do to prevent attacks and keep data safe.

In Brief:  A judge has certified a class action trial on copyright damages resulting from the use of pirated works to train artificial intelligence.

In Brief: Machine learning models for artificial intelligence are not patentable.

In Brief: Using copyrighted works without permission to train AI can be fair use.

Senior counsel Andrew Williams offers a cautionary anecdote about the mismanagement of employee 401(k) investment plans and the liability that could potentially fall on employers and plan administrators who do not have fiduciary liability insurance.

In Brief: Using copyrighted works to train AI can be fair use.

In Brief:  Iconic imagery can be used in a trademark.

In Brief: A prop is not the proper subject matter for copyright protection.

In Brief: Timing is everything when it comes to the protection of a trademark.

In Brief: Opposing registration of a trademark can put your trademark in jeopardy.

In Brief: Do not depend on the court to find your trade secrets. Beverly Berneman’s blog discusses protecting trade secrets after an employee leaves to work for a creditor.

In Brief: Beverly Berneman's blog discusses legislation to the creation and dissemination of deceptive deepfakes.

In Brief:  Patent eligibility depends on whether the invention is “new”.

In Brief: In a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work.

In Brief: A trademark infringement plaintiff can only recover damages from a named defendant.

In Brief: A legal research company committed copyright infringement by using an artificial intelligence training model to capture a competitor's materials.

In Brief: A dupe trademark may not cause a likelihood of confusion.

In Brief: Beverly Berneman's blog celebrates the Public Domain Class of 2025.

In Brief: An attempt to hijack a trademark and ugly Christmas sweater design failed.

In Brief: Systematic and organized copyright infringement is a predicate act for a racketeering lawsuit.