- 19 -
benefits as a result of the prohibited transaction. Id. The
court noted that: (1) The taxpayers were both the disqualified
persons and the ESOP's sole beneficiaries, (2) the prohibited
transaction proved highly productive for the ESOP from the
beginning, leaving it with assets of far greater value than it
would have accumulated from employer contributions alone, and
(3) the ESOP purchased extraordinarily valuable property that
had a 4-year history of producing royalties in the millions of
dollars. Id.
In contrast with Zabolotny, we are unable to find here
that the Plans were in exceptional financial condition, or that
a plan beneficiary did not risk losing plan benefits, as a
result of the prohibited transaction. Unlike the transfer in
Zabolotny, which left the plan with assets of far greater value
than it would have accumulated from employer contributions
alone, the transfer here did not increase the assets held by
the Plans. The transfer replaced one asset (an account
receivable) with another asset (real estate), and the asset
received by the MPP needed to be sold by it to satisfy its
obligation to petitioner (thus resulting in additional plan
expenditures). The Plans also did not receive extraordinarily
valuable property that had a solid history of producing income
in the millions of dollars, nor did the prohibited transaction
prove highly productive for the Plans from the start.
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