- 25 -
would be if the disqualified person were acting under the highest
fiduciary standards." (Emphasis added.)
Petitioners' reliance on section 4975(f)(5) is misplaced.
It is evident from the above language that section 4975(f)(5) has
no relevance to the income tax imposed upon dividend income
arising from a corporation's conferring a benefit upon its
shareholders. This is apparent from the structure of the Code.
Section 4975(f)(5) is contained in subtitle D, chapter 43,
whereas the provisions governing taxation of dividends are found
in subtitle A, chapter 1. There is no cross-reference between
section 4975(f)(5) and those provisions.
Petitioners further contend that bookkeeping errors do not
give rise to a penalty tax, relying upon Ahlberg v. United
States, 780 F. Supp. 625 (D. Minn. 1991). In Ahlberg, the sole
beneficiary and administrator misallocated contributions between
a pension plan and profit-sharing plan, the funds of which were
maintained in a commingled mutual fund. The District Court
granted summary judgment sua sponte, holding that the taxpayer
was not subject to the excise tax of 5 percent for maintaining a
plan with an accumulated funding deficiency. The court concluded
that the misallocations were bookkeeping errors, from which the
taxpayer did not receive any extra benefit, and that no harm came
to the plans.
Ahlberg is distinguishable from the instant case. Unlike
the taxpayer in Ahlberg, Milo Chapman and David Christie did
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011