- 7 -
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. We stated: “While
the result to petitioner seems harsh, we cannot ignore the plain
language of the statute, and, in effect, rewrite this statute to
achieve what would appear to be an equitable result.” Eanes v.
Commissioner, supra at 171 (citing Hildebrand v. Commissioner,
supra at 59). In the instant case, petitioner’s position is
weaker than that of the taxpayer in Eanes because there is no
showing that petitioner, through retirement, discharge or
otherwise, has forfeited her service credit with the MPSERS.
Moreover, under section 1.219-2(e), Income Tax Regs., “If an
employee makes a voluntary or mandatory contribution to a
[defined benefit] plan * * * such employee is an active
participant in the plan for the taxable year in which such
contribution is made.” (Emphasis added.) As required under the
Act, petitioner personally contributed $84.89, or 3 percent of
the first $5,000 of compensation, to the plan during 1996.
Petitioners further contend that under their interpretation
of section 1.219-2(b), Income Tax Regs., petitioner was not an
active participant in the plan. The pertinent part of section
1.219-2(b), Income Tax Regs., provides the following:
An individual whose compensation for the plan year
ending with or within his taxable year is less than the
amount necessary under the plan to accrue a benefit is
not an active participant in such plan.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011