- 7 -
goal of the statute. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit reasoned that for purposes of section 219(g), the
term "employee" should be broadly defined to include those
individuals who are otherwise covered by employment-based, tax
advantaged retirement plans. Using this definition, the Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that for purposes of section
219(g), Federal judges were employees of the United States and
subject to the limitations imposed by that section.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered
section 10103 of OBRA and concluded that the legislation
supported its reasoning. Contrary to petitioners' argument on
the point, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit did not
base its holding on such legislation.
Given the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's holding
as to how the term "employee" is to be defined for purposes of
section 219, there is no point in addressing petitioners'
contention that under relevant common-law principles, petitioner
is no more an employee of the State of Nebraska than a Federal
judge is an employee of the United States. Likewise, we need not
consider petitioners' argument that section 10103 of OBRA is only
applicable to Federal judges. Whether we agree with petitioner
on either point is of no consequence in applying the holding of
the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to the facts of this
case, as we are persuaded by respondent to do. See Golsen v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011