- 9 -
i.e., the plan is not qualified. Sec. 415(a)(1)(B), (c)(1);
Howard E. Clendenen, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-318.
Further, when a plan is disqualified under section 415, the
disqualification continues until remedial action is taken.
Martin Fireproofing v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1173, 1188 (1989).
Corrective action of the sort set forth in the regulations is a
prerequisite to requalification of a plan following a violation
of section 415. Id. at 1184; Van Roekel Farms v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-171. As we stated in the declaratory judgment,
the corporation had not argued or established that any corrective
measures were taken, citing section 1.415-6(b)(6), Income Tax
Regs.5 Howard E. Clendenen, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioners argue that Rev. Rul. 72-368, 1972-2 C.B. 220,
and Rev. Rul. 73-79, 1973-1 C.B. 194, support their contention
that disqualification in a prior year does not prevent the plan
from being qualified in a future year when it meets the
requirements of section 401(a). We disagree. In Martin
Fireproofing, we stated that (1) Rev. Rul. 72-368, supra,
predates section 415, which was enacted in 1974, and (2) Rev.
Rul. 72-368, supra, does not require respondent to qualify a plan
5 Sec. 1.415-6(b)(6), Income Tax Regs., provides for
retroactive relief when an excess allocation results from (1)
forfeitures, (2) a “reasonable error in estimating” compensation,
or (3) “other limited facts and circumstances” to be determined
by respondent. See Martin Fireproofing v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
1173, 1182 (1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011