- 10 -
83(8) (1988), and therefore could only have transferred under a
policy established in accord with the enabling statute that
created the Board of Trustees for the Maryland State Retirement
and Pension Systems (the Board). Specifically, petitioners argue
that petitioner failed to initiate the transfer by filing the
appropriate election form at least 90 days prior to the date that
the transfer was to become effective, as required by Md. Ann.
Code, art. 73B, sec. 83(8) (1988); therefore, according to this
argument, petitioner was permitted to transfer to the Pension
System, and to receive the Transfer Refund, on account of his
retirement.
Petitioners' argument, while colorable, is not persuasive.
First, petitioner was the only witness at trial. Not only did he
fail to call any representative of the Maryland State Retirement
Agency or any member of the Board, but, more fundamentally, he
failed to persuade us of the existence of a policy in Maryland
whereby individuals could elect to transfer from the Retirement
System to the Pension System without satisfying the requirements
of Md. Ann. Code, art. 73B, sec. 83(8) (1988). Rule 142(a);
Burton v. Commissioner, supra at 632; Sarmir v. Commissioner,
supra at 88.
Moreover, petitioner testified that he was aware: (1) He
could have transferred from the Retirement System to the Pension
System at any time after 1979 and received a transfer refund; (2)
an election to transfer (and thereby receive a transfer refund)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011