Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc. - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
                    beneficiary's exercise of control.  [ERISA sec.                   
                    404(c)(1), 29 U.S.C. sec. 1104(c)(1).]                            
               The plans permitted Mr. Flaherty to exercise control over              
          the assets in the accounts, and petitioner maintains that, since            
          Mr. Flaherty is not a fiduciary under the provisions of ERISA               
          section 404, 29 U.S.C. section 1104, he is not a fiduciary under            
          section 4975.  On the other hand, respondent argues that Mr.                
          Flaherty is a fiduciary for purposes of section 4975 even though            
          he may not be a fiduciary under ERISA section 404.  We,                     
          therefore, must decide whether ERISA section 404(c)(1) is                   
          incorporated into section 4975(e).                                          
               B.  Principles of Statutory Construction and the Legislative           
               History                                                                
               The starting point for the interpretation of a statute is              
          the language itself.  See Consumer Prod. Safety Commn. v. GTE               
          Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980).  If the language of the           
          statute is plain, the function of the court is to enforce the               
          statute according to its terms.  See United States v. Ron Pair              
          Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240-241 (1989).  All parts of a                
          statute must be read together, and each part should be given its            
          full effect.  See McNutt-Boyce Co. v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 462,            
          469 (1962), affd. per curiam 324 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1963).  When            
          identical words are used in different parts of the same act, they           
          are intended to have the same meaning.  See Commissioner v.                 
          Keystone Consol. Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 152, 159 (1993).  On the            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011