- 8 -
We agree with respondent that even if the plan has a low
rate of return, no actual controversy exists because petitioner
has not raised an issue that would put at risk the qualification
of the plan under section 401.
Petitioner complains that the MAIL Plan's rate of return is
unsatisfactory, and that he did not vote for this plan. There is
no requirement in section 401, or in related provisions, that a
retirement plan grow at a specified rate, or that its
participants be satisfied with the rate of return. Likewise,
there is no requirement that the plan be approved by all present
employees. Thus, petitioner raises no argument that calls into
question the qualified status of the plan under section 401 and
related provisions.
Petitioner's primary request is that we terminate the MAIL
Plan. However, section 7476 authorizes the Court only to make
declarations with respect to the initial qualification, the
continuing qualification, or the failure to make a determination
with respect to a retirement plan. Thus, section 7476 allows us
only to review the qualification of the plan. It does not afford
the remedy of termination of a retirement plan.
This appears to be a dispute between petitioner and the MAIL
Plan administrators. Accordingly, we find that there is no
actual controversy over which we have jurisdiction under section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011