- 11 -
should be as similar as possible, but also that they should
operate together. Petitioner relies on various statements from
the report of the conference committee. See H. Conf. Rept. 93-
1280, supra at 295, 1974-3 C.B. at 456-457 (“To the maximum
extent possible, the prohibited transaction rules are identical
in the labor and tax provisions, so they will apply in the same
manner to the same transaction.”); id. at 308, 1974-3 C.B. at 469
(“The conferees intend that the labor and tax provisions are to
be interpreted in the same way and both are to apply to income
and assets. The different wordings are used merely because of
different usages in the labor and tax laws.”).
We agree with petitioner that the legislative history
indicates a general intent of Congress that the language of the
provisions be read together. The legislative history does not,
however, preclude the existence of separate definitions or
separate scopes in the two provisions. As we noted in O’Malley
v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 644, 650-651 (1991), affd. 972 F.2d. 150
(7th Cir. 1992):
The basis for the liability of a disqualified person
for the excise tax under section 4975(a) * * * is not the
same as the basis for liability of a fiduciary under section
406(a), ERISA. See, e.g., H. Rept 93-1280 (Conf.) at 306-
307 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. 415, 467-468. A fiduciary is liable
under section 406(a), ERISA, if he or she knowingly caused
the plan to engage in a transaction which is described in
section 406(a)(1), ERISA. * * *
Under section 4975(a) and (b), a disqualified person is
liable for the excise tax if he or she participates in the
transaction. Participation in section 4975 occurs any time
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011