Boruta v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
55 T.C.M. 670, 9 E.B.C. 2013 (1988)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Peter M. Boruta, M.D., P.C., a corporate entity (the practice) (plaintiff), had operated for several years and maintained a pension plan during that time. During those initial years, the pension plan constituted a qualified trust under § 401 of the Internal Revenue Code. The practice’s plan included a statement providing that participants’ benefits would become vested and nonforfeitable upon even partial termination of the plan. After several years, there were three plan participants. Peter Boruta then closed the medical office for new employment, terminating the other two employees. The practice treated funds in the plan as forfeited to the trust, notwithstanding the statement regarding the nonforfeitability of funds upon partial termination of the plan. Boruta’s balance was treated as vested and nonforfeitable. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) then determined that the trust was not a qualified plan under § 401. According to the IRS, the plan did not qualify because there was a partial termination of the plan when a “significant number” of participants (i.e., the other two employees) had been terminated. At that time, under the plan, the two employees’ funds should have been nonforfeitable, the IRS claimed. The practice petitioned the court, claiming that the trust was indeed a qualified trust.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sterrett, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.