- 20 -
Depart. Store, Inc. v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 869 (1984); Feroleto
Steel Co. v. Commissioner, supra; see also Ada Orthopedic, Inc.
v. Commissioner, supra.
Additionally, in applying the prudent investor rule, it has
been stated:
Under ERISA, as well as at common law, courts have focused
the inquiry under the "prudent man" rule on a review of the
fiduciary's independent investigation of the merits of a
particular investment, rather than on an evaluation of the
merits alone. As a leading commentator puts it, "the test
of prudence--the Prudent Man Rule--is one of conduct, and
not a test of the result of performance of the investment.
The focus of the inquiry is how the fiduciary acted in his
selection of the investment, and not whether his investments
succeeded or failed." In addition, the prudent man rule as
codified in ERISA is a flexible standard: the adequacy of a
fiduciary's investigation is to be evaluated in light of the
"character and aims" of the particular type of plan he
serves. [Donovan v. Cunningham, 716 F.2d 1455, 1467 (5th
Cir. 1983); fn. ref. omitted; citations omitted.]
Thus, the ultimate outcome of an investment is not proof that the
investment failed to meet the prudent investor rule. See
DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 920 F.2d 457,
465 (7th Cir. 1990); see also Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice
2d, sec. 156:9 (1997-98).
By examining the totality of transgressions that Morrissey
committed, we can assess whether it was an abuse of discretion
for respondent to disqualify the Defined Benefit Plan.
Morrissey, as sole shareholder of petitioner--the plan sponsor--
failed to make required contributions to the Defined Benefit
Plan. For the plan year ended October 31, 1989, the Schedule B
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011