- 10 -
of Exhibits 12-P and 16-P. We disagree. Page 4 of those
Exhibits does not so state.
To qualify under section 501(c)(18), the plan must have
been funded solely by employee contributions. There is no
evidence of the source of funding of the French pension plan
other than petitioner’s $1,916 payment in 2001.
To qualify under section 501(c)(18), the benefits paid under
the plan may not discriminate in favor of highly compensated
employees. Sec. 501(c)(18)(B) and (C). Petitioner contends that
Exhibits 12-P and 16-P and the UMR Web site show that the pension
plan meets this requirement. We disagree. Exhibits 12-P and 16-
P do not describe the coverage of the French pension plan, and
the UMR Web site is not in evidence.
According to petitioner, a publication prepared by the
French Foreign Ministry states that her $1,916 payment to the
French pension plan in 2001 is deductible. The publication to
which petitioner refers describes a tax convention signed by
France and the United States on July 28, 1967. We disagree that
the publication authorizes petitioner to deduct the $1,916. The
publication refers to a tax convention that was superseded by the
1994 U.S./French Tax Convention. See 1994 U.S./French Tax
Convention art. 23(4), 2 Tax Treaties (CCH) par. 2001.24.
Article 18 of the 1994 U.S./French Tax Convention, rather than
Article 19 in the now-superseded convention signed in 1967,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011