- 6 -
Memo. 1992-418, affd. without published opinion 998 F.2d 1018
(8th Cir. 1993).
Because petitioners reported modified AGI in the amount of
$79,300 on their 1997 income tax return, they are not entitled to
any IRA deduction if Mrs. Brandkamp was an “active participant”
in the MetLife plan at any time during 1997.
Petitioners contend that because Mrs. Brandkamp’s interest
in the MetLife plan was forfeitable, Mrs. Brandkamp was not an
active participant in the plan. However, section 219(g)(5),
which defines the term “active participant”, clearly states that
the “determination of whether an individual is an active
participant shall be made without regard to whether or not such
individual’s rights under a plan * * * are nonfortfeitable.” See
also Eanes v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 168, 170 (1985) (citing
Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 683 F.2d 57, 58 (3d Cir. 1982), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1980-532)); Wartes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-
84. Eanes involves a taxpayer who forfeited all rights under an
employer’s retirement plan when he left after only 3 months.
Despite the short time the taxpayer worked, we held that he was
an active participant in his employer’s plan and was not entitled
to a deduction under section 219. Although Eanes involved an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011