Richard L. and Marjorie A. Freese - Page 3

                                          3                                           
          in PERS is compulsory upon being employed, with some exceptions             
          not relevant herein.  During 1990, an aggregate of $133.88 was              
          withheld from petitioner's wages and contributed to PERS.                   
               As the result of an extremely poor working relationship                
          between petitioner and his direct supervisor, the Director of the           
          program, petitioner chose to resign from his position effective             
          February 1, 1991.  At such time, he requested a full refund of              
          his contributions to PERS.  On or about October 22, 1991,                   
          petitioner rolled over the refund of $283.07 into an individual             
          retirement account (IRA).                                                   
               Prior to April 15, 1991, petitioners opened two IRAs and               
          made total contributions thereto of $2,834.  Petitioners deducted           
          this amount on their 1990 joint Federal income tax return and               
          reported adjusted gross income for 1990 of $59,632.15.                      
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed the                 
          entire deduction of $2,834 on the ground that petitioner was an             
          "active participant" in a plan established for employees of a               
          State or political subdivision or agency thereof during the year            
          at issue.  As such, the limitation of section 219(g) on IRA                 
          contribution deductions was applicable and resulted in the total            
          disallowance of the amount claimed by petitioners.  Petitioner              
          argues that he was not an active participant within the meaning             
          of section 219(g)(5) because PERS is a deferred compensation plan           
          and serves as a substitute for Social Security in the State of              
          Ohio.  Petitioner further argues that it would be inequitable to            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011