- 4 -
Discussion
Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
makes the following arguments: (1) There is no "actual
controversy" because petitioner fails to set forth any grounds
which, if proven, would result in plan disqualification; and (2)
petitioner does not qualify as an "interested party" because he
has not alleged or shown that he is a present employee or that he
is covered by a collective-bargaining agreement under which the
MAIL Plan is maintained.
Section 7476(a) provides that this Court may exercise
jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action if there is an
actual controversy involving a determination by the Secretary
with respect to the initial or continuing qualification of a
retirement plan, or involving a failure by the Secretary to make
a determination with respect to such initial qualification or
with respect to such continuing qualification if the controversy
arises from a plan amendment or plan termination. See Loftus v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 845, 855 (1988), affd. without published
opinion 872 F.2d 1021 (2d Cir. 1989). Petitioner bears the
burden of proving that the jurisdictional requirements of section
7476 have been met. See Rule 217(c)(1)(A)(i); Halliburton Co. v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 88, 94 (1992).
We shall first address whether an actual controversy exists.
As previously stated, in order for us to exercise jurisdiction
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011