Saurini v. Commissioner
This text of 1983 T.C. Memo. 524 (Saurini v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
FEATHERSTON,
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
GALLOWAY,
After concessions by petitioner, the remaining issues for decision are (1) whether petitioner is entitled to a deduction under section 219 for a payment made to an individual retirement account, (2) whether*262 petitioner is liable for the 6-percent excise tax imposed by section 4973 on excess contributions to an individual retirement account (IRA), and (3) whether petitioner is entitled to a repair expense deduction claimed on rental property.
Some of the facts are stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided at Utica, New York, at the time of filing his petition.
During the year 1979, petitioner was employed by Charles T. Main, Inc. (CTM), until he terminated his employment with the corporation late in December of that year. CTM maintained a qualified pension plan in which petitioner was an active participant. Petitioner did not have a vested interest in the plan and received no distribution of funds when he terminated his employment. Early in 1980, petitioner deposited $3,000 in an IRA in the names of himself and his wife, Mrs. Hanne S. Saurini, 3 applicable for the year 1979. Mrs. Saurini's wages were not covered under a pension plan. Respondent disallowed $1,500 of the $3,000 deduction claimed by petitioner with respect to his IRA deduction.
*263 Section 219, as applicable to the year 1979, allows a deduction for a contribution to an IRA described in section 408(a) up to $1,500 in the taxable year. However, section 219(b)(2) denies the deduction in the event the individual was an active participant in a plan described under section 401(a) for any part of such year. 4
Although section 219 does not define the term "active participant," the report of the Ways and Means Committee states (H. Rept. No. 93-807 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. (Supp.) 236, 364):
An individual is to be considered an active participant in a plan if he is accruing benefits under the plan even if he only has forfeitable rights to those benefits. Otherwise, if an individual were able to,
We agree with respondent that since petitioner was an active participant in the CTM pension plan he may not claim a $1,500 deduction for the IRA contribution under section 219(b)(2)(A). This case is indistinguishable from numerous other cases decided by this Court. See
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1983 T.C. Memo. 524, 46 T.C.M. 1206, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saurini-v-commissioner-tax-1983.