-29-
record could fairly be described as a termination or partial
termination.11
Thirdly, we note that 29 U.S.C. sec. 1341A deals with
terminations of multiemployer plans. The events that petitioner
complains of do not constitute terminations within the meaning of
29 U.S.C. sec. 1341A. See Kershaw Multiemployer Plans--Special
Rules, 359-3d, Tax Mgmt. (BNA), A-35 (1994).
We hold, for respondent, that section 1.7476-1(b)(5), Income
Tax Regs., does not apply to the instant case.
As a result of the foregoing, we conclude that petitioner is
not an interested party within the meaning of section 7476(b)(1),
and thus he does not have standing to bring the instant case.
__________________________
It must be clearly understood that our dismissal is only for
lack of jurisdiction because, under the statute and the
legislative regulations, petitioner does not have the standing to
bring the instant case. We do not rule, either expressly or by
implication, on the merits of any of the parties’ contentions as
to whether the MEBA Plan is tax-qualified. Further, we do not
rule, either expressly or by implication, on whether petitioner
may initiate a proceeding under any other part of ERISA, the
11 See sec. 1.411(d)-2(b), Income Tax Regs.; 1 Lieber,
Lieber on Pensions, secs. 3:10,040, 3:10,050, at 3-250, 3-252
(1992).
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