Robert D. Booth and Janice Booth, et al. - Page 61

                                       - 61 -                                         
               We hold for petitioners on this issue.                                 
          2.  10 or More Employer Plan; Experience-Rating Agreements                  
               We turn to the second issue; namely, whether the Prime Plan            
          is a "10 or more employer plan" that lacks "experience-rating               
          arrangements with respect to individual employers."  See sec.               
          419A(f)(6).  Petitioners assert that the Prime Plan is within               
          section 419A(f)(6); i.e., the Prime Plan is a single plan that              
          covers more than 10 employers, no one of which made more than 10            
          percent of the Trust's total contributions, and the plan has no             
          experience-rating arrangements with respect to individual                   
          employers.  Respondent asserts that the Prime Plan is outside the           
          scope of section 419A(f)(6); i.e., the Prime Plan is an                     
          aggregation of plans that has experience-rating arrangements with           
          respect to all participating employers.                                     
               We agree with respondent that the Prime Plan does not meet             
          the requirements of section 419A(f)(6).  The Prime Plan is an               
          aggregation of separate welfare benefit plans, each of which has            
          an experience-rating arrangement with the contributing employer.            
          We start our analysis with a discussion of the history of subpart           
          D.13  Subpart D, which consists of sections 419 and 419A, was               
          enacted by the Congress as part of Deficit Reduction Act of 1984,           
          Pub. L. 98-369, secs. 511(a) and 512(a), 98 Stat. 484, 854-862.             

               13 In National Presto Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C.           
          559 (1995), and General Signal Corp. v. Commissioner, 103 T.C.              
          216 (1994), supplemented by 104 T.C. 248 (1995), this Court                 
          addressed other issues under subpart D.                                     




Page:  Previous  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011