- 14 -
generally problematic and costly, especially in the instant
setting where petitioner's 50-percent interest would most
likely have had to be partitioned before it could be sold.
To the extent that the excess value remained in the MPP, it
would constitute an overfunding of the MPP, which, under basic
principles of pension law, would have to be given back to the
transferor to avoid plan termination. See sec. 1.415-9(a)(1),
Income Tax Regs.; see also Buzzetta Constr. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 641 (1989). The mere fact that the value
that petitioner transferred to the MPP may have equaled the
amount that he owed both the Plans, a fact that petitioner
asserts but which the record disproves, does not mean that both
debts are satisfied as a result of the transfer. Indeed, it
appears that petitioner continues to owe the DBP the money
(with interest) that it lent to him because he has never
transferred any value to the DBP to repay these amounts. The
record suggests that petitioner attempted to satisfy his
$1,150,000 obligation to the Plans by surrendering property of
inadequate value. The property had been appraised at a total
of $2,078,000 shortly after the transfer, and the record does
not support a finding that petitioner's 50-percent interest in
the property was worth more than $1,039,000 on the date of the
transfer (i.e., 50% x $2,078,000). Of course, it would be an
unusual case where petitioner's 50-percent undivided interest
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011