Feistman v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. Petitioners, employees of the City and County of Los Angeles, belonged to retirement plans which required that portions of their earnings be contributed to their respective retirement funds. Participation in the plans was compulsory and the employees' rights thereunder were nonforfeitable.
Read the full summary
1. Petitioners, employees of the City and County of Los Angeles, belonged to retirement plans which required that portions of their earnings be contributed to their respective retirement funds. Participation in the plans was compulsory and the employees' rights thereunder were nonforfeitable. Held, amounts withheld from their earnings and paid to the respective funds on their behalf were not excludable from their gross income. 2. Disallowance of deductions for educational expenses approved. 3. Disallowance of commuting expense deductions approved.
1Opinion of the Court
Eugene G. and Lorraine B. Feistman, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Feistman v. Commissioner
Docket No. 3282-73
United States Tax Court
63 T.C. 129; 1974 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28;
November 12, 1974, Filed
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1. Petitioners, employees of the City and County of Los Angeles, belonged to retirement plans which required that portions of their earnings be contributed to their respective retirement funds. Participation in the plans was compulsory and the employees' rights thereunder were nonforfeitable. Held, amounts withheld from their…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Commissioner v. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Helvering v. HallockSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Fausner v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Heuer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- William W. Steinhort and Mildred Steinhort v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.