- 60 -
arrangement contemplated by the regulations". Harry A. Wellons,
Jr. M.D., S.C. v. Commissioner, 31 F.3d at 572.
Nor do we agree with respondent's claim that the DWB's were
deferred compensation because an employer could voluntarily
terminate its participation in the Prime Plan. We are unable to
find any requirement in the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions that would limit welfare benefits to cases in which an
employer could not voluntarily terminate its participation in a
plan. We find in the statutory text that the Congress knew how
to say "involuntary separation" when it wanted. See, e.g., sec.
501(c)(17)(D), which is referenced in sec. 419A(f)(1)(A). In the
absence of a legislative pronouncement that limits severance
benefits to cases where an employer could not voluntarily
terminate its participation in a plan, we refuse to adopt such a
pronouncement here. Although respondent is concerned that the
ability of a participating employer to terminate voluntarily its
participation in the Prime Plan allows the employer to control
the timing of income to its employees, we regard that concern as
misplaced. Respondent's concern could also be expressed with
respect to the pension plan of a corporation owned by a single
shareholder. Although the shareholder may be the only employee,
it does not necessarily follow that such a pension plan provides
for receipt of deferred compensation merely because the
owner/shareholder has the ability to terminate the pension plan
at will.
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011