Milo G. and Sarah E. Chapman, et al. - Page 25

                                                - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011