Neil M. Baizer - Page 6

               By letter dated December 6, 1991, the IRS notified the DOL             
          about its intent to disqualify the Plan for failing to satisfy              
          the exclusive benefit rule of section 401(a).  At this time, the            
          DOL was pursuing ERISA title I remedies against the Plan.  In               
          February 1993, petitioner (individually and as trustee of the               
          Plan) and the estate of Mr. Cohen entered into a "Stipulation for           
          Consent Judgment: Judgment" (Consent Judgment) with the DOL.  By            
          consenting to the Consent Judgment, "The parties have agreed to             
          the entry of this judgment as final adjudication of all claims,             
          obligations, penalties and remedies of the * * * [DOL] related to           
          the allegations in the complaint, without admitting or denying              
          any of the allegations contained therein."  Further, the Consent            
          Judgment provided that "The obligations imposed by this Judgment            
          are not binding on any government agency other than the United              
          States Department of Labor."                                                
               On August 18, 1994, respondent issued a notice of deficiency           
          to petitioner, in the amounts set forth above, determining excise           
          tax deficiencies pursuant to section 4975(a) and (b), as well as            
          additions to tax.  Respondent determined that petitioner was a              
          "disqualified person" and that he had participated in a                     
          prohibited transaction under section 4975(c).                               
               We begin by noting that, as a general rule, the                        
          Commissioner's determinations are presumed correct, and the                 
          taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise.  Rule 142(a);               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011