- 75 -
ultimately lead [inappropriately] to an unacceptable tax burden
for many taxpayers who do not participate in these programs."
Id. at 1276. Bearing these expressions of legislative intent in
mind, we are unable to agree with petitioners that the Congress
was encouraging the type of tax planning techniques promoted in
the Prime Plan.
We also disagree with petitioners' assertion that the Prime
Plan lacked "experience-rating arrangements with respect to
individual employees". The legislative history of subpart D sets
forth the House committee's intent to disallow the tax benefits
which petitioners claim flow from the Prime Plan, and the
examples of abuse that the House committee cited in its report
describe precisely what Prime is attempting to accomplish through
the Prime Plan. The legislative history states that section
419A(f)(6) was enacted because the relationship of a
participating employer to a 10 or more employer plan typically
resembles the relationship of an insured to an insurer. H. Conf.
Rept. 98-861, supra at 1159; 1984-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 413. The
legislative history states further that a 10 or more employer
plan is outside the scope of section 419A(f)(6) 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." H. Conf. Rept. 98-861,
supra at 1159; 1984-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 413.
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011