-26-
petitioner). However, the Consent Judgment contains no mention
of the assignment of the accounts receivable. Further, there is
no evidence in the record regarding the degree of scrutiny of the
DOL's investigation into the assignment. The parties to the
Consent Judgment agreed that the entry of the judgment was a
final adjudication of all claims, obligations, penalties and
remedies related to the allegations in the complaint, but they
did not admit or deny any of the allegations. We find that the
DOL in the Consent Judgment did not rule on whether a prohibited
transaction occurred. Therefore, the IRS' position is not
contrary to the DOL's position in the Consent Judgment.
Furthermore, the Consent Judgment expressly provided that it
was not binding on any government agency other than the DOL. By
its terms, the Consent Judgment did not limit respondent's
authority to determine excise tax deficiencies regarding the
assignment of accounts receivable. Thoburn v. Commissioner, 95
T.C. 132, 143 (1990).14
We hold that the Consent Judgment does not prevent
respondent from determining an excise tax under section 4975(a)
and (b) against petitioner. As previously indicated, we sustain
respondent's determination.
14 In Thoburn v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 132, 143 (1990), the
Court, in interpreting the DOL settlement at issue, noted that it
was a contract, and its effect should be governed by the
principles applicable to contracts. Therefore, the Court looked
to the objectively manifested intent of the parties. Id.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011