- 6 -
In his comment to the District Director, petitioner did not
raise the issue of defective notice. Assuming, arguendo, that in
the absence of such an argument in the administrative record we
can address petitioner's concern, we examine whether petitioner's
complaint is grounds for disqualification of the plan. Cf.
Halliburton Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Thompson v. Commissioner,
71 T.C. 32, 37 (1978). Petitioner alleges that he never saw any
posted notices at his place of employment and only found out
about the application pending before the IRS when he called the
human resources department to inquire about the status of the
MAIL Plan application. Petitioner claims that the board of
trustees failed to post the requisite notice, so the plan should
never have been approved; and therefore there is a disagreement
between him and the IRS regarding the qualified status of the
plan. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that notice was
properly given, and irrespective of petitioner's claim,
petitioner received actual notice of the pending application in
time to file a comment with the IRS.
In general, before a determination as to the qualified
status of a retirement plan can be made, notice must be given to
all interested parties. See secs. 1.7476-1(a) and 1.7476-2(a),
Income Tax Regs; see also Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, Pub. L. 93-406, sec. 3001(a), 88 Stat. 829, 995. Notice
may be given "in person, by mailing, by posting, or by printing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011