-24-
Petitioner also appears to assert that respondent
Commissioner misinterprets section 1.7476-1(b)(4), Income Tax
Regs., as follows:
19. (a) Denies that Section 1.7476-1(b)(4), Income Tax
Regs., provides that “interested parties” with respect
to an application for a determination regarding a
collectively bargained plan must be “present employees
covered by a C/B agreement pursuant to which plan is
maintained-------” Petitioners [sic] denial is
grounded upon alleged mis-interpretation of Inc. Tax.
Regulation 1.7476-1(b)(4), by the Respondent
(Commissioner IRS)
(b) It is sometimes considered “unfortunate” that
retired employees must be covered under a collectively
bargained plan, instead of being able to enjoy the
liberty to appoint their own representative(s). If
such were possible, this litigation may have been
avoided. (See Official Court Record, Petitioners [sic]
REPLY to Respondent (Commissioner IRS) ANSWER to
Amended Petition For Declaratory Judgement (Retirement
Plan) on page “21”, under “F-14”, and continuing on
page “22”.) (Administrative Record, Exhibit 14-N, page
17, para. “9”, An Amicus on page “7” reproduced as page
“43” as a part of the Official Court Record in
Petitioners [sic] Opening Brief, a reference to entire
paragraph at the top of the page).
(c) The petitioner alleges, that, it would appear
that the Secretary, in writing the remedial
mechanism(s) available under I.R.C. 1.7476(a), [sic]
would have been mindful of paragraph (b) above, and so
worded Section 1.7476(b)(4) [sic] of the Income Tax
Regulations to insure that all present employees
covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement pursuant
to which the plan is maintained, “shall be interested
parties”.
We conclude that respondent Commissioner has correctly
interpreted section 1.7476-1(b)(4), Income Tax Regs.
Paragraph (1) of section 7476(b) provides that a declaratory
judgment proceeding may be brought under section 7476 “only” by a
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011