John F. Romann - Page 1

                                   111 T.C. No. 15                                    

                               UNITED STATES TAX COURT                                

                            JOHN F. ROMANN, Petitioner v.                             
                             PENSION TRUST, Respondents                               

               Docket No. 8842-96R.              Filed November 4, 1998.              

                    The MEBA Plan, a collectively bargained, multiemployer            
               pension plan, provided notice in an employee publication               
               that the MEBA Plan was going to apply to the IRS for an                
               advance determination that it continued to be a tax-                   
               qualified pension plan after adoption of certain plan                  
               amendments.  P, a retiree receiving a pension under the MEBA           
               Plan, received this notice and wrote to the IRS asserting              
               that the MEBA Plan, after incorporation of the amendments,             
               no longer would be tax-qualified.  The IRS issued a                    
               favorable determination letter to the MEBA Plan.  P filed a            
               petition for declaratory judgment under sec. 7476, I.R.C.              
               1986.  Respondent Commissioner moved under Rule 215(a)(2),             
               Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, that the Board of           
               Trustees of the MEBA Pension Trust (the Board) be joined as            
               a party to this action.  We granted that motion and the                
               Board was joined as a party to this action.  After the case            
               was submitted for decision on the administrative record,               
               respondent Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack             
               of jurisdiction, asserting that P was not entitled to file             

Page:   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