Robert D. Booth and Janice Booth, et al. - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          Billy J. Johnson & Ruth Johnson (the Johnsons),                             
          docket No. 9229-94                                                          
                    Addition to Tax     Penalty                                       
                                   Sec.           Sec.                                
          Year    Deficiency     6651(a)(1)        6662(a)                            
          1990     $83,972         ---            $16,794                             
          Johnson Systems, Inc. (Systems), docket No. 9230-94                         
                    Addition to Tax     Penalty                                       
                                   Sec.           Sec.                                
          Year    Deficiency     6651(a)(1)        6662(a)                            
          1990    $108,675         ---            $21,735                             
               We decide the following issues:                                        
               1.  Whether the Prime Plan is a welfare benefit plan or a              
          plan deferring the receipt of compensation.  We hold it is a                
          welfare benefit plan.5                                                      
               2.  Whether the Prime Plan is a 10 or more employer plan               
          described in section 419A(f)(6).  We hold it is not.6                       






               5 In light of a concession by respondent that amounts                  
          attributable to contributions to the Prime Plan are not                     
          includable in the gross income of the individual petitioners                
          under sec. 83 if the plan is determined to be a welfare benefit             
          plan, our holding on this issue makes it unnecessary to decide              
          certain other issues in dispute; namely:  (1) Whether the Trust             
          maintains separate accounts for each employee under sec.                    
          404(a)(5), (2) whether the employees' rights are subject to a               
          substantial risk of forfeiture under sec. 83, (3) whether the               
          Traegdes extended the period of limitation for assessment of tax            
          on income recognizable under sec. 83, and (4) whether the                   
          petitioning individuals are liable for penalties under sec.                 
          6662(a).  We express no opinion on these issues.                            
               6 Our holding on this issue moots another issue in dispute;            
          namely, whether contributions to the Prime Plan are current or              
          capital expenditures.  We express no opinion on this issue.                 




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