-8-
established a SEP for petitioner’s benefit, as required by section
408(k). Even, however, were we to assume that there was an
employer-established SEP for petitioner’s benefit, petitioners have
failed to show that Westech or any other employer of petitioner
made the required qualifying contribution to such a SEP. Indeed,
the record indicates that the $11,250 deposit was made by
petitioner, and not by Westech or another employer of petitioner.
Further, the record does not enable us to trace the source of the
$11,250 deposit to the $62,500 or any other employment payment
petitioner received from Westech.3 See sec. 408(l). And finally,
the Forms W-2 attached to petitioners’ 1989 Form 1040 fail to
reflect any amount contributed by Westech to a SEP on petitioner’s
behalf.
Petitioners allege that not only was petitioner employed as
president of Cal-American during the first quarter of 1989, but
also for the remainder of 1989 he was self-employed as an insurance
consultant. As noted previously, self-employed individuals or sole
proprietors are treated as their own employers under a SEP plan.
See secs. 401(c)(4), 408(k)(7). However, petitioners have failed
to prove that petitioner was self-employed at any time during 1989.
Indeed, the record supports a contrary conclusion.
3 A letter from Bancsure to petitioner dated Mar. 31,
1989, refers to a total severance payment of $61,812.50, of which
$6,812.50 represented expense reimbursement and pension payments.
The letter makes no allocation of the $6,812.50 as between
expense reimbursement and pension payments.
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