Charles P. Stepnowski - Page 9
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2005 > Charles P. Stepnowski - Page 9
- 9 -
685; and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, Pub. L.
106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-587. The IRS sent a copy of this
determination letter to petitioner.
After the pleadings were filed, petitioner filed a Motion
for an Order to Calendar for Trial and a Motion for Permission
for Discovery. Petitioner sought discovery and trial concerning
his position that Hercules had falsely represented to the IRS
that the 2001 plan amendments were not a “cutback” of benefits.
On July 15, 2004, the Court issued an Order that denied
petitioner’s Motion for an Order to Calendar for Trial and
petitioner’s Motion for Permission for Discovery. The Court’s
Rule 217(a) states that the disposition of an
action for declaratory judgment involving the
qualification of a retirement plan “will ordinarily be
made on the basis of the administrative record, as
defined in Rule 210(b)(12). Only with the permission
of the Court, upon good cause shown, will any party be
permitted to introduce before the Court any evidence
other than that presented before the Internal Revenue
Service and contained in the administrative record as
so defined.” Only in very extraordinary circumstances
will the Court permit either party to supplement the
administrative record. See The Nationalist Movement v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-698, affd. 37 F.3d 216
(5th Cir. 1994).
Based upon the record as developed at the motions
hearing, we are not persuaded that petitioner has shown
good cause either to commence discovery in this case or
for this case to be set for trial. In short, the legal
issue in this case is whether a change in the interest
rate that Hercules, Inc. uses to compute the present
value of a lump-sum retirement benefit under its
retirement plan constituted an impermissible “cut-back”
within the meaning of section 411. Petitioner raised
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011