Orvil M. Weddel and Karen L. Weddel - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          dispute that, at the time petitioners received their lump-sum               
          distributions from the Plan, the Plan was not qualified under               
          section 401(a).                                                             
               Petitioners assert, however, that the distributions they               
          received from the Plan should not be taxable because respondent             
          failed to give notice to the Plan sponsor of the possibility of             
          using the CAP Program in order to avoid plan disqualification.              
          Petitioners argue that this notice is mandatory under the CAP               
          Program, which was in place at the time Ace received its final              
          determination letter revoking the Plan’s qualified status.                  
          Petitioners’ argument is without merit.                                     
               The IRS will, at the request of the taxpayer, issue an                 
          initial determination letter stating whether a plan qualifies               
          under section 401(a).  The Commissioner has broad authority,                
          however, to revoke a determination letter retroactively.  Sec.              
          7805(b).  As stated above, a plan, in order to be qualified, must           
          initially meet the formal requirements of section 401(a) and must           
          be continually amended to comport with subsequent changes to the            
          statutory requirements.  Buzzetta Constr. Corp. v. Commissioner,            
          92 T.C. 641, 646 (1989).  It is clear from the record, and there            
          is no dispute between the parties, that Ace failed to meet these            
          requirements, and it was for this reason that the Plan’s tax-               
          exempt status was revoked.                                                  
               While it appears that respondent did not handle the instant            
          case in accordance with the guidelines set forth under the CAP              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011