- 8 -
taxpayer with a zero balance in her account. During the 15 years
petitioner worked for Inova, she never once met the threshold for
pension credit contributions, nor was her job designed such that
it would be realistically possible to do so. Despite the fact
that Mrs. Colombell received no tax benefit whatsoever from her
“participation” in Inova’s retirement plan, the Court is not free
to rewrite the law. See, e.g., Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 683
F.2d 57, 59 (3d Cir. 1982), affg. T.C. Memo. 1980-532; Johnson v.
Commissioner, 661 F.2d 53, 54-55 (5th Cir. 1981), affg. 74 T.C.
1057 (1980). We must conclude that petitioner was, for Internal
Revenue Code purposes, an active participant in Inova’s
retirement plan in 2002.
Conclusion
The tax code is complex, see generally Cheek v. United
States, 498 U.S. 192, 199-200 (1991), and we must enforce the
laws as written and interpreted, see Marsh & McLennan Cos. v.
United States, 302 F.3d 1369, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Philadelphia
& Reading Corp. v. United States, 944 F.2d 1063, 1074 (3d Cir.
1991). The result in this case is harsh, and unfortunately the
Court can appreciate why petitioners will regard it as such. The
regulation in its current form, the validity of which has not
been called into question, dictates the result. The Court may
7(...continued)
individual’s rights under the plan are forfeitable, was then
found only in the legislative history. See H. Rept. 93-807, at
129 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. (Supp.) 236, 364.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011