- 68 -
419A(f)(6), which, as they read it, removes the Prime Plan's
participating employers from the bowels of subpart D. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933); see also
Interstate Transit Lines v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 590, 593
(1943). Deductions are strictly construed and allowed only when
a "'clear provision'" allows for one. INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992)(quoting New Colonial Ice Co.
v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934)); Deputy v. du Pont, 308
U.S. 488, 493 (1940).
Petitioners argue that the Prime Plan is a single plan.
Petitioners assert that the word "plan" is construed broadly, and
that the need for the Trust to have a single pool of funds would
make the phrase "experience-rating arrangements with respect to
individual employers" surplusage. Petitioners assert that the
Congress enacted section 419A(f)(6) "to encourage small employers
to provide on a tax-advantaged basis welfare benefits to their
employees, who, generally speaking, had not received such
benefits in the past." Petitioners assert that the Prime Plan
satisfies Congressional intent.
Petitioners also argue that the Prime Plan lacked
"experience-rating arrangements with respect to individual
employers". Petitioners define the relevant phrase by reference
to a footnote in the House committee report; the footnote
indicates that the term "purely experience-rated" means "the
employer is entitled to an automatic rebate if the amount paid
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011