-14-
1121 (1980), affd. without published opinion 661 F.2d 913 (3d
Cir. 1981).
Secondly, respondent Commissioner acknowledges advising
petitioner that petitioner was an interested party, not only
during the administrative processing of respondent Board’s
application, but also in the pleadings in the instant case.
Respondent Commissioner maintains that these actions cannot serve
to give petitioner interested party status because “The Court’s
jurisdiction is statutory and cannot be enlarged by the actions
of the parties.” Petitioner responds as follows:
24. Admits the fact that Commissioner advised the
petitioner that he was an interested party, entitled to
file a Petition For Declaratory Judgment in the U.S.
Tax Court. (Administrative Record, Exhibits 4-D, 9-I
and 10-J)
25. Admits that the Court’s jurisdiction is statuatory
[sic], and that the U.S. Supreme Court has power to
prescribe that the statute shall not abridge, enlarge
or modify the substantive right of the petitioner as an
interested party, to appeal the decision of the
Commissioner who abused discretion in the issuance of a
Favorable Leter [sic] of Determination dated February
12, 1996, to the Board of Trustees, MEBA Pension Trust,
#001, “out of time”, (See Official Court Record,
Petitioners Opening Brief, Section VIII ARGUMENT, NOTE
11, on pages 78 and 79 at (b)(i)(ii), and “based on
information supplied” (Administrative Record, Exhibit
11-K, para. 1) instead of issuing a “timely” Letter of
Favorable Determination, based upon required
information supplied for determination of the “Entire
Plan As Amended. (U.S. Code, Title 28, Rule 2072,
Judiciary & Judicial Procedure). (Official Court
Record, Petitioners Opening Brief, Section VIII,
ARGUMENT at NOTE & NOTE 8, pages 65 through 72).
Respondent is correct that our jurisdiction cannot be
enlarged by agreement of the parties, or waiver, or failure to
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