American Stores Company and Subsidiaries - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         
          the instant matter is paragraph (7), which furnishes a blueprint            
          for applying section 404(a) limitations insofar as they relate to           
          CBA Plans.  Section 413(b)(7) states:                                       
               Deduction Limitations.-- Each applicable limitation                    
               provided by section 404(a) shall be determined as if                   
               all participants in the plan were employed by a single                 
               employer.  The amounts contributed to or under the plan                
               by each employer who is a party to the agreement, for                  
               the portion of his taxable year which is included                      
               within such a plan year, shall be considered not to                    
               exceed such a limitation if the anticipated employer                   
               contributions for such plan year (determined in a                      
               manner consistent with the manner in which actual                      
               employer contributions for such plan year are                          
               determined) do not exceed such limitation.  If such                    
               anticipated contributions exceed such a limitation, the                
               portion of each such employer's contributions which is                 
               not deductible under section 404 shall be determined in                
               accordance with regulations prescribed by the                          
               Secretary.                                                             
               Petitioner concedes in its brief that the facts and the                
          issue before us are "essentially identical" to that of a case               
          before the Court at the time the briefs were filed, which we have           
          since decided in favor of the Commissioner.  See Lucky Stores,              
          Inc., & Subs. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 1 (1996) (Lucky Stores              
          I).  Many of the arguments petitioner poses in the instant case             
          were discussed at length in Lucky Stores I, or in the                       
          Supplemental Memorandum Opinion, Lucky Stores, Inc., & Subs. v.             
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-70 (Lucky Stores II), and we need             
          not retread the same ground here.  However, we shall address                
          certain of petitioner's arguments pertaining to the deduction               








Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011