Johnson v. C. I. R.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2562,78-2562 |
| Citation | 620 F.2d 153 |
| Parties | 80-1 USTC P 9313, 2 Employee Benefits Ca 2186 Ferris L. JOHNSON and Jettie L. Johnson, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Ferris L. Johnson, Mundelein, Ill., for petitioners-appellants.
Stuart E. Seigel, IRS, Washington, D. C., M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.
Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, TONE and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges.
The petitioners, Ferris L. Johnson (hereinafter Johnson) and Jettie L. Johnson (party to this case only because she signed the petitioners' joint return), appeal from a decision of the Tax Court. 1 The Tax Court upheld a determination by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowing Johnson's deduction of $1,500 contributed to an individual retirement account (IRA), Internal Revenue Code § 219(b)(2)(A)(i), 26 U.S.C., 2 and imposing a 6% excise tax for excess contributions to an IRA, I.R.C. § 4973. We affirm and adopt the opinion of the Tax Court, T.C. Memo 1978-426, 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 1763, as our own, with the following additional comments.
The facts are stipulated and may be restated briefly. In 1975 Johnson worked for three employers. The first two employers did not have pension plans covering Johnson. The third company, FMC, had a qualified pension plan which covered Johnson from the beginning of his employment with FMC, in August 1975, through the rest of the year. Earlier in 1975, prior to joining FMC, Johnson deposited $1,500 in an IRA, which he claimed as a deduction on his 1975 income tax return.
On these facts Johnson argues he is entitled to the claimed deduction, relying on his interpretation of an informal I.R.S. publication and his claim that Congress intended to allow him the deduction. As the Tax Court's opinion shows, Johnson may not rely on an informal I.R.S. publication, if the tax statute denies the deduction. And the clear language of the statute denies the deduction. See n.2 supra.
But even if the language of the statute were not so clear, Congress' intent regarding a situation like Johnson's is expressed unmistakably in the legislative history of § 219(b)(2):
For example, an individual who has contributed to a retirement account may change jobs in mid-year and become an active participant in a qualified plan of his new employer during that year. In this case, a retirement savings deduction is not to be allowed and the contributions made to an individual retirement account will be excess contributions.
H.Rep.No.93-807, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in (1974) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 4639, 4670, 4795 (emphasis added). The Senate Report contains a similar example. S.Rep.No.93-383, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1973), reprinted in (1974) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 4890, 5016.
Further buttressing the Commissioner's reading of § 219(b)(2) is the purpose behind the statute. Congress enacted § 219(b)(2) to prevent situations in which taxpayers would obtain double tax benefits by setting aside in an IRA the maximum portion of their income allowed and deferring tax on that income, while for the same year deferring tax on employer contributions to a qualified pension plan. See H.Rep.No.93-807, supra, (1974) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 4793-94; Orzechowski v. C.I.R., 592 F.2d 677, 678 (2d Cir. 1979). That is precisely the situation in which Johnson found himself. Thus the Tax Court was correct in holding that Johnson was not entitled to the claimed deduction and that the contribution to the IRA was an excess contribution subject to the 6% excise tax under I.R.C. § 4973.
The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed and the clerk of this court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
1 After preliminary examination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Maggio
... ... (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant ... Abbott J. Reeves, Research and Appeals, Gretna, La., for respondents-appellees ... Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ... Before RUBIN, JOHNSON and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges ... ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge: ... A defendant convicted by a Louisiana state court of first degree murder in the course of an armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment seeks habeas corpus. We affirm the district ... ...
-
Batson v. Commissioner
...law, he was not entitled to a deduction for a contribution to an IRA for either year.7 Johnson v. Commissioner 80-1 USTC ¶ 9313, 620 F. 2d 153 (7th Cir. 1980), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court Dec. 35,484(M); Johnson v. Commissioner 81-2 USTC ¶ 9771, 661 F. 2d 53 (5th Cir. 1981), af......
-
WASOWSKI v. Commissioner
...36,213, 72 T.C. 768 (1979); Horvath v. Commissioner Dec. 38,733, 78 T.C. 86 (1982); Johnson v. Commissioner 80-1 USTC ¶ 9313, 620 F. 2d 153 (7th Cir. 1980); Johnson, Jr.v. Commissioner 81-2 USTC ¶ 9771, 661 F. 2d 53 (5th Cir. 1981) affg. Dec. 37,142 74 T.C. 1057 (1980); Hildebrand v. Commis......
-
Foulkes v. C. I. R.
...from the present case. However, we decline to adopt its reasoning 12 and instead look to our decision in Johnson v. C. I. R., 620 F.2d 153 (7th Cir. 1980) for guidance. 13 In Johnson we had an opportunity to discuss section 219 and the congressional purpose behind the provision. The taxpaye......
-
Preliminary Issues
...in IRS publications is not binding on the Government, nor can it change the plain meaning of tax statutes. See Johns v. Commissioner , 620 F.2d 153 (7th Cir. 1980), aff’g T.C. Memo 1978-426 (Tax Information on Individual Retirement Savings Programs); Carpenter v. United States , 495 F.2d 17......