- 28 -
1990, petitioner decided to change the COLA payments from a
series of ad hoc payments into a permanent part of the plan. On
these facts, we cannot say that, under section 1.411(d)-4, Income
Tax Regs., the two ad hoc payments made to supplement the COLA
for 1989 and 1990 represented a pattern of amendments that
requires us to deem those two ad hoc payments as part of the NFC
Plan before 1991. We recognize that, absent the required
prospective application of the 1988 regulation, the chronic
shortfall of the COLA funding from 1985 through 1991 might
suffice to show that the persistent shortfalls were not really
separate or transitory business events, but were rather
indications of a continuous feature of the plan. As noted,
however, section 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-1(c)(2), Income Tax Regs.,
precludes us from considering events before July 11, 1988.
We conclude that the 1995 plan amendments, although they
removed COLA benefits which had been provided to the pre-1991
retirees, did not violate the anticutback provisions of section
411(d)(6). In so concluding, we find without merit all arguments
not discussed herein. Accordingly,
Decision will be entered
for petitioner.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Last modified: May 25, 2011