- 10 -
dispute that the plan was a “plan” within the meaning of section
4975. It was. See sec. 4975(e)(1)(A). As we understand
petitioner’s argument on brief, he is not liable for any of the
excise taxes respondent determined because none of the three
loans is a prohibited transaction. The three loans are not
prohibited transactions, petitioner asserts, because (1) the
loans were permitted by the plan, (2) the bankruptcy court has
through its confirmation of the confirmed plan prescribed rules
under which Aspects will repay the loans, (3) the Department of
Labor has reviewed the loans and approved them, and (4) the loans
were made in the best interest of the plan and its participants.
Petitioner also asserts in this regard that the period of
limitation has expired on the assessment of all of the excise
taxes respondent determined as to the three loans. Petitioner
does not challenge respondent’s calculation of the excise taxes
shown in the notice of deficiency, including respondent’s use of
the 10-percent rate.
We agree with respondent that petitioner is liable for the
excise taxes as determined. Section 4975 was added to the Code
in 1974 by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), Pub. L. 93-406, sec. 2003(a), 88 Stat. 971. Congress
enacted section 4975 to effect its intent to tax disqualified
1(...continued)
4975(f)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011