Isabelle Bichindaritz - Page 7
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2005 > Isabelle Bichindaritz - Page 7
- 7 -
corresponded to a trust or whether it met the requirements of
section 501(c)(18). Therefore, respondent would be prejudiced if
petitioner were permitted to raise this issue after trial.
3. Whether Petitioner Paid $1,916 to an Entity That
Generally Corresponds to a Trust As Defined in Section
Petitioner contends that the French pension plan to which
she paid $1,916 in 2001 generally corresponds to a trust as
defined by section 501(c)(18). Even if we considered this
argument, petitioner would not prevail.
Petitioner has not shown that the French pension plan to
which she contributed generally corresponded to a trust under
section 501(c)(18).4 Petitioner testified that (1) the French
pension plan was limited to permanent public employees, (2) the
plan would pay her a taxable annuity after she reaches age 60,
(3) the plan has no survivor benefits, and (4) she would lose all
benefits under the plan if she stopped contributing to it.
The record includes a summary of a tax convention signed by
representatives of France and the United States on July 28, 1967.
Exhibit 12-P (in French) and 16-P (English translation of Exhibit
12-P) consists of three documents. The first document is a
4 Petitioner has the burden of proof. The burden of
proving a factual issue relating to liability for tax shifts to
the Commissioner under certain circumstances. Sec. 7491(a).
Petitioner does not contend that sec. 7491 applies. Thus,
petitioner bears the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011