-28-
does not apply so as to require that we interpret the term
“present employee” in section 1.7476-1(b)(4), Income Tax Regs.,
to include “former employee.”
We hold, for respondent Commissioner, that petitioner is not
an interested party within the meaning of section 1.7476-1(b)(4),
Income Tax Regs.
(3) Plan Terminations
Petitioner also asserts that there were at least three plan
terminations and thus section 1.7476-1(b)(5), Income Tax Regs.,
(supra note 4), applies to the instant case, and he qualifies as
an interested party under that provision of the regulations. We
have examined the situation as disclosed by the record and do not
understand that there has been a termination of the MEBA Plan.
Firstly, we have not found, and petitioner has not directed
our attention to, any statutory or regulatory provision or any
case law, dealing with section 7476, under which the events in
the record could fairly be described as a termination or partial
termination.
Secondly, we note that section 411(d)(3) deals with
terminations. We have not found, and petitioner has not directed
our attention to, any statutory or regulatory provision or any
case law, dealing with section 411, under which the events in the
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011