MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
ARMEN, Special Trial Judge
: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable year 1996 in the amount of $574. After concessions by petitioner,1 the issue for decision is whether petitioner is plan described in section 219(g)(5)(A)(iii) as a plan “established for its employees * * * by a State or political subdivision thereof”. We disagree with petitioner. Petitioner would have us construe the language of section 219(g)(5)(A)(iii) much more narrowly than we are willing to do. The legislative history of section 219 establishes that the section was enacted in an attempt to achieve some degree of parity between those individuals who have access to taxadvantaged retirement plans through employment and those individuals who do not. See H. Rept. 93-779, at 127 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. 244, 370; H. Rept. 93-807, at 128 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. (Supp.) 236, 363 (providing that the deduction for contributions to individual retirement accounts is to be available only where an individual “does not participate in any other tax-supported retirement plan”); H. Conf. Rept. 93-1280, at 355 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. 415, 496-498. Thus, active participants of tax-advantaged plans with income above various levels are denied completely the tax deduction that is provided by section 219 to individuals who are not otherwise covered by similar tax-advantaged retirement plans. See sec. 219(g)(5).
The Lansing school district is a part of the Michigan public school system. The MPSERS was established by the State of Michigan for its public school employees. Petitioner, through his employment with the Lansing school district, had the opportunity to participate in, and indeed did participate in, such an employment-based, tax-advantaged plan. Given these facts, the distinction that petitioner makes regarding his employer’s being the Lansing school district rather than the State of Michigan is inconsequential. The fact remains that petitioner was an active participant in an employment-based, taxadvantaged retirement plan provided by the State. We hold therefore that petitioner actively participated in a plan established by a State or a political subdivision thereof for its employees, see sec. 219(g)(5)(A)(iii), and is not entitled to a tax deduction for his contribution.
Alternatively, the record establishes that the MPSERS is a plan described in section 401(a) and a trust exempt from tax under section 501(a). Thus, petitioner is not entitled to an IRA deduction because he was an active participant in a plan described in section 219(g)(5)(A)(i).
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, as well as petitioner's concessions, Decision will be entered for respondent.