William Edward and Patricia Marie Colombell - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
               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, trust, or contract              
               are nonforfeitable.                                                    
               Petitioners logically contend that because Mrs. Colombell              
          never actually participated in the pension, nor did her employer            
          ever participate on her behalf, Mrs. Colombell was not an active            
          participant in the plan.  Petitioners invoke the commonly                   
          accepted meanings of the terms “active” and “participant”.  Thus,           
          the dictionary defines “active” as, inter alia:                             
                    1:  characterized by action rather than by                        
                    contemplation or speculation  2:  * * * involving                 
                    action * * * 8: * * * b:  engaged in an action or                 
                    activity                                                          
          Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1996).                    
          Similarly, a “participant” is defined as “one that participates”.           
          Id.                                                                         
               The regulations, however, provide that an individual is an             
          active participant in a defined benefit plan simply by not being            
          excluded from the plan.  See sec. 1.219-2(h), Example (1), Income           
          Tax Regs.  No actual behavior on anyone’s part is required.  In             
          fact, actual knowledge of the plan’s existence is not even                  
          required.5  See, e.g., Baumann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-            
          313.  Because Inova’s plan was mandatory for all employees, Mrs.            


               5  Mrs. Colombell may or may not have known that she was               
          eligible to participate in Inova’s 401(k) plan.  While this does            
          not change the result we reach, the Court notes that                        
          participation in Inova’s 401(k) plan would have led to a pretax             
          savings for retirement, achieving the end tax result desired by             
          petitioners.                                                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011