- 65 -
insured to an insurer." H. Conf. Rept. 98-861, at 1159; 1984-3
C.B. (Vol. 2) at 413. The conferees went on to explain that:
"notwithstanding compliance with the 10-percent rule,
and consistent with the discussion above on definition
of a fund, a plan is not exempt from the deduction
limits if the liability of any employer who maintains
the plan is determined on the basis of experience
rating because the employer's interest with respect to
such a plan is more similar to the relationship of an
employer to a fund than an insured to an insurer."
[Id. at 1159.]
Petitioners argue that the Prime Plan is within this
exception, and that any uncertainty should be resolved in their
favor because respondent has not issued proper guidance under
section 419A(f)(6). Petitioners assert that Mr. Weiss asked the
Commissioner for a ruling on the Prime Plan, and that the
Commissioner refused to accommodate him. Petitioners assert that
Mr. Weiss was forced to withdraw his request for ruling 18 months
after he submitted it because he was led to believe that the
Commissioner would never rule on his request. We understand
petitioners to argue that the Commissioner should have issued
Mr. Weiss guidance under section 419A(f)(6), and that the
Commissioner should now be penalized for failing to do so.
Petitioners rely on Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153 (1917), for
the proposition that any doubts as to the reach of section
419A(f)(6) must be resolved in their favor.
We do not agree with petitioners that any ambiguity is to be
resolved in their favor. See Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011