DocketNumber: Docket No. 5205-78.
Citation Numbers: 42 T.C.M. 607, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 331, 1981 T.C. Memo. 415, 2 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1898
Filed Date: 8/10/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
PARKER,
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the time of filing the petition in this case, petitioners resided in Bethesda, Maryland. They timely filed a joint Federal income tax return for the year 1975.
During 1975, petitioners lived in California. Petitioner Daniel J. B. Mitchell (hereinafter petitioner) was a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, and was covered by the University's qualified pension plan. His wife was a librarian with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was not covered by a qualified pension plan. During 1975 each spouse*335 established a savings arrangement with a savings institution, and the Union Bank (Los Angeles) acted as the trustee of the savings arrangement for each spouse. The Union Bank sent each spouse a Form 5498, Statement of Account for Participants in Individual Retirement Accounts or Annuities, showing contributions in 1975 of $ 1,175 by petitioner and $ 883.50 by his wife. Each spouse filed with their joint return a Form 5329, Return for Individual Retirement Savings Arrangement (under
Were you during any part of the year an active participant in a qualified pension, profit-sharing or stock bonus plan, including a qualified Keogh (HR10) plan (see instructions), or were you covered under a
Petitioner's wife answered this question "No," but petitioner answered "Yes" with the following explanation: *336 "But pension plan did not apply to income covered by IRA."
During 1975, in addition to his employment with the University, petitioner was self-employed as a consultant. From his consulting work, petitioner earned $ 7,285.63 on which he paid self-employment tax.
On their joint return, the spouses deducted from their gross income a total amount of $ 2,058.50 as payments to an individual retirement arrangement (from attached Forms 5329). On audit, respondent allowed the $ 883.50 contribution to an individual retirement account made by the wife but disallowed the $ 1,175 contribution made by petitioner. Petitioner's deduction was disallowed on the ground that he did not meet the requirements of
OPINION
*338 Petitioner does not seriously contend that he is entitled to a deduction under
*339 The advice petitioner received from the financial institution was erroneous and if petitioner's inquiry to the local office of the Internal Revenue Service "produced the same opinion," as he testified, then that too was erroneous. Petitioner seems to agree, as he must, that such erroneous legal advice is not binding on respondent or this Court.
Petitioner instead asks the Court to treat his IRA as a Keogh plan and to overlook what he characterizes as a "technical error." Unlike the example petitioner suggests of the bank giving him the wrong piece of paper to sign, here petitioner in fact did what he intended to do,
We must sustain respondent's determination. However, petitioner's wife apparently would not be liable for the six percent excise tax. See footnote 4. For that reason decision will be entered under Rule 155 to permit the parties to resolve that matter.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the taxable year here involved, unless otherwise indicated.↩
2.
(a)
(1) to an individual retirement account described in
(2) for an individual retirement annuity described in
(3) for a retirement bond described in
For purposes of this title, any amount paid by an employer to such a retirement account or for such a retirement annuity or retirement bond constitutes payment of compensation to the employee (other than a self-employed individual who is an employee within the meaning of
3. (b)
(2)
(A) he was an active participant in--
(i) a plan described in
(ii) an annuity plan described in
(iii) a qualified bond purchase plan described in
(iv) a plan established for its employees by the United States, by a State or political division thereof, or by an agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing, or
(B) amounts were contributed by his employer for an annuity contract described in
4.
(a)
(1) an individual retirement account (within the meaning of
(2) an individual retirement annuity (within the meaning of
(3) a retirement bond (within the meaning of
The statutory notice in this case is addressed to both spouses and suggests joint liabilities for the excise tax as well as the income tax. Because of the last sentence of
5.
(e)
(1)
6. See also
Richard W. And Janet Orzechowski v. Commissioner of ... , 592 F.2d 677 ( 1979 )
alfred-fortugno-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-silvia-fortugno-v , 353 F.2d 429 ( 1965 )
Ferris L. Johnson and Jettie L. Johnson v. Commissioner of ... , 620 F.2d 153 ( 1980 )
Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner , 77 S. Ct. 707 ( 1957 )