- 5 -
would have been the same had the contributions been made through
a salary deduction.” According to petitioners, this is because
contributions under a qualified salary reduction arrangement are
made before tax. Petitioners contend that by using after tax
money from petitioner’s savings account and then deducting a
corresponding amount, the same result is achieved and “the IRS is
no worse off after this lump sum contribution than they would
have been had the money been withheld monthly from Petitioners
[sic] paychecks.” Petitioners argue that they should not be
penalized for making “an honest mistake”.
While we are not unsympathetic to petitioners’ position,
such an equitable argument cannot overcome the plain meaning of
the statute. See Eanes v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 168, 171 (1985)
(citing Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 683 F.2d 57, 59 (3d Cir.
1982), affg. T.C. Memo. 1980-532). As we have said in cases
involving other statutes whose application has resulted in
perceived unfairness, such issues are in the province of
Congress, and we are not authorized to rewrite the statute. See,
e.g., Kenseth v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 399, 407-408 (2000),
affd. 259 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (and cases cited thereat); see
also Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987) (“The Tax Court
is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable
powers”). Accordingly, respondent’s determination is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007