- 6 -
1(b)(3), Income Tax Regs. The only instance in which a former
employee qualifies as an interested party is in the case of a
plan termination. See sec. 1.7476-1(b)(5), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioners concede that, as former employees of the Union,
they do not qualify as interested parties under the controlling
regulation. Petitioners nevertheless contend that, because the
Union treated them as interested parties during the
administrative proceedings, as evidenced by their receipt of the
Notice to Interested Parties, the technical requirements of the
regulations defining interested parties should be deemed waived.
We disagree. In short, petitioners ignore the principle that our
jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by agreement of the parties,
waiver, or failure to object. See Romann v. Commissioner, 111
T.C. 273, 281 (1998); see also Smith v. Commissioner, supra at
13-14; Loftus v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 845, 861 (1988), affd.
without published opinion 872 F.2d 1021 (2d Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we hold that the Union's error in serving
petitioners with a copy of the Notice to Interested Parties does
not provide a basis for concluding that petitioners are
interested parties in this action. See Romann v. Commissioner,
supra at 281 (The Commissioner's erroneous treatment of a former
employee as an interested party during the administrative process
does not provide a basis for treating the former employee as an
interested party for purposes of determining the taxpayer's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011