§89 — Repealed. Pub. L. 101–140, title II, § 202(a), Nov. 8, 1989, 103 Stat. 830]
12 cases·1 followed·2 distinguished·9 cited—8% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §89
[§ 89. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–140, title II, § 202(a), Nov. 8, 1989, 103 Stat. 830] Section, added Pub. L. 99–514, title XI, § 1151(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2494; amended Pub. L. 100–647, title I, § 1011B(a)(1)–(9), (21), (28), (29), (34), title III, § 3021(a)(1)(A), (B), (2)(A), (3)–(9), (11)–(13)(A), (b)(2)(B), (3), title VI, § 6051(a), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3483–3485, 3487, 3488, 3625–3632, 3695, related to nondiscrimination rules regarding benefits provided under employee benefit plans. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries Effective Date of RepealPub. L. 101–140, title II, § 202(c), Nov. 8, 1989, 103 Stat. 830, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [repealing this section] shall take effect as if included in section 1151 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 [Pub. L. 99–514, see section 1151(k) set out as a note under section 79 of this title].” Nonenforcement of Section for Fiscal Year 1990Pub. L. 101–136, title V, § 528, Nov. 3, 1989, 103 Stat. 816, provided that: “No monies appropriated by this Act [see Tables for classification] may be used to implement or enforce section 1151 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 or the amendments made by such section [section 1151 of Pub. L. 99–514, which enacted section 89 of this title, amended sections 79, 105, 106, 117, 120, 125, 127, 129, 132, 414, 505, 3121, 3306, 6039D, and 6652 of this title and section 409 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 89 of this title].” Transitional ProvisionsPub. L. 100–647, title III, § 3021(c), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3633, provided for the first issue of valuation rules, the interim impact on former employees, the meeting of the written requirement for covered plans in connection with implementation of section 89 of the Code, and the issuance by Nov. 15, 1988, of rules necessary to carry out section 89, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–140, title II, § 203(a)(7), Nov. 8, 1989, 103 Stat. 831. Part-Time Employee Defined for Purposes of Subsection (f)Pub. L. 100–647, title VI, § 6070, Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3704, increased the number of employees who would be excluded from consideration under this section during plan years 1989 and 1990, in the case of a plan maintained by an employer which employs fewer than 10 employees on a normal working day during a plan year, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–140, title II, § 203(a)(7), Nov. 8, 1989, 103 Stat. 831.
12 Citing Cases
Commissioner, 728 F.3d at 682; see also Gilman v.
That certification is not presented in subsection (a) as one of the conditions for the exemption; and, section 893 .does not explicitly provide that the wages shall be 17 - exempt only "if" the Secretary certifies reciprocity ( unlike the social security tax provisions , discussed next) . C . Employment tax statutes The income tax provision in section 893 may be contrasted with the corresponding employment tax provisions .
89(1)(e) (1988), regarding the Maryland State Teachers' Retirement System. - 11 - Based on existing case law, we hold that the Transfer Refund does not qualify for tax-free rollover treatment under section 402(a)(5) because it does not constitute a qualified total distribution. II. Section 72(t) Additional Tax Issue We turn next to respondent
912 (1987). The transaction at issue in Woods concerned a tax shelter wherein the taxpayer contributed offsetting currency options to a partnership to create an artificially inflated basis in his interest, which, following the subsequent liquidation thereof, ultimately resulted in his claiming significant noneconomic tax losses.5 Woods, 5
The Appeals Office concluded in the notice ofdetermination that petitioner had not shown that he was entitled to reliefunder section 6015(b). Respondent maintained that position in his answer to the amended petition. Specifically, -11- respondent asserted that although Ms. Jarrell may not have informed petitioner that she had
he trustee continues to have the powers reasonably necessary under the circumstances to wind up the affairs ofthe trust."); Sterling v. Sterling, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 867, 879 (2015) (equating Cal. Prob. Code sec. 15407(b) with Restatement, Trusts 3d, sec. 89 (2007), which states that "[t]he powers ofa trustee do not end on the trust's termination date but may be exercised as appropriate to the performance ofthe trustee's duties in winding up administration, including making distribution, in a mann
he trustee continues to have the powers reasonably necessary under the circumstances to wind up the affairs ofthe trust."); Sterling v. Sterling, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 867, 879 (2015) (equating Cal. Prob. Code sec. 15407(b) with Restatement, Trusts 3d, sec. 89 (2007), which states that "[t]he powers ofa trustee do not end on the trust's termination date but may be exercised as appropriate to the performance ofthe trustee's duties in winding up administration, including making distribution, in a mann
89(1)(e) (1988), regarding the Maryland State Teachers' Retirement System. 11 The Pension System and the related transfer option to that system from the Retirement System were created in part because of concern about the actuarial integrity of the Retirement System due in particular to the unlimited post- retirement cost-of-living adjustments