2
exists in the substance and administration of the
business.
Held, further, in applying the foregoing to Lear,
service with a sole proprietorship, which was
incorporated and subsequently sponsored the plan, will
count as service with the employer.
Held, further, in Brody Enterprises, service with
an alleged sole proprietorship and a law firm, neither
of which had any continuous relationship to the sponsor
of the plan, does not constitute service with the
employer.
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
CLAPP, Judge: These cases are before the Court on remand
from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further
consideration consistent with that court's opinion. Citrus
Valley Estates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 49 F.3d 1410 (9th Cir.
1995), affg. in part and remanding in part 99 T.C. 379 (1992).
Subsequent to the remand of these cases, the parties filed a
stipulation of facts (supplemental stipulation of facts) and
briefs relating to the issue on remand.
The issue for decision on remand is whether the plan
participants properly counted their previous employment towards
the section 415(b) maximum benefit limitations. We hold that the
participant in the Lear Eye Clinic plan properly counted his
previous employment, but the participant in the Brody Enterprises
plan did not.
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as
in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011