- 4 -
previously taxed earnings of petitioner.” Petitioner, however,
provides no evidence to support this assertion other than
language used by Milwaukee Road in a 1981 document to the effect
that petitioner had vested in certain pension benefits.
Petitioner argues that the use of the term “vested” implies that
he made contributions to the plan. However, the use of this term
carries no such implication. See, e.g., sec. 411(a)(2) (minimum
vesting requirements for contributions made by an employer on
behalf of an employee under a qualified plan).
Petitioner asserts that, because the alleged contributions
to the retirement plan were made with funds which had already
been taxed, none of the benefits he now receives from the
retirement plan should be subject to further taxation. However,
petitioner cites, and we find, no authority for this proposition.
Assuming arguendo that petitioner in fact made contributions
to the pension plan, petitioner may have been entitled to exclude
that portion of the benefits he received which represents a
ratable portion of his investment in the pension annuity. Sec.
72(b), (d). The excluded amount typically would have been a
portion of the benefits he received in any given year and not, as
petitioner argues, the entire amount of the benefits. Id.
However, petitioner has provided no evidence supporting his
assertion that he made any contributions, and we accordingly have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011