EDWARD J. KOSMAL, AND NILI H. KOSMAL, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Contributions to LACERA may not be excluded from income because they are materially indistinguishable from federal retirement system contributions previously held non-excludable.
Appellants sought to exclude contributions made to the Los Angeles County Employee Retirement Association (LACERA) from their income. The Commissioner…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equal Protection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The Kosmals appeal from a Tax Court decision upholding a determination by the Commissioner that the Kosmals’ contributions to the Los Angeles County Employee Retirement Association (LACERA) may not be excluded from income. We affirm.
We have previously held that amounts deducted from base pay and deposited with the federal civil service retirement system are not excludable from income. Cohen v. Commissioner, 543 F. 2d 725 (9th Cir. 1976). We agree with the Tax Court that there is no material distinction between contributions to the federal retirement system and contributions to LACERA and that the latter therefore may not be excluded. See Feistman v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 129 (1974), appeal dismissed, 587 F. 2d 941 (9th Cir. 1978).
The Kosmals contend that they have been deprived of due process and equal protection of the laws because some types of private pension plan contributions and other types of government employee benefits may be excluded from income. We do not agree. There are important distinctions in the degree of risk, purpose, and degree of voluntariness of state and local government pension plans versus private pension plans and other types of government employee benefits. The failure to provide for exclusion of federal retirement contributions has been upheld against equal protection and due process attacks. See Hogan v. United States, 513 F. 2d 170 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836, 96 S.Ct. 62, 46 L.Ed.2d 55 (1975). Appellants have suggested no valid reason why the result here should differ from that in Hogan.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lonny F. Zwiener and Ardith E. Zwiener v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 743 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1984)
-
Carl & Ruth Briggs & Raymond J. Hurbi v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 694 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Wester v. Alaska, 423 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1975)
- Decoto Aircraft, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 423 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1975)
- Hogan v. United States, 513 F.2d 170 (6th Cir. 1975)
- Eugene G. & Lorraine B. Feistman v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 587 F.2d 941 (9th Cir. 1978)
- Cohen v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 543 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1976)