- 15 -
transaction loans into acceptable loans, does not correct the
prohibited transactions, and does not eliminate petitioner’s
liabilities for the excise taxes respondent determined as to the
three loans. See Medina v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 51, 55-56
(1999).
As to petitioner’s third assertion, we find no evidence in
the record that establishes, as petitioner asks us to find, that
the Department of Labor has reviewed and approved each of the
three loans. Although petitioner in his brief asks the Court to
rely upon a certain letter from the Department of Labor, that
letter was not admitted into evidence and, hence, is not
evidence. See Rule 143(b).
As to petitioner’s fourth assertion, petitioner relies
mistakenly on his claim that the three loans were in the best
interest of the plan and its participants. From a factual point
of view, we are unable to find in the record that the loans were
in the best interest of the plan and its participants. From a
legal point of view, even if we could make such a finding, our
conclusion would be the same: that the loans are prohibited
transactions. As we noted in Rutland v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
1137, 1146 (1987):
The language and legislative history of ERISA indicate
a congressional intention to create, in section
4975(c)(1), a blanket prohibition against certain
transactions, regardless of whether the transaction was
entered into prudently or in good faith or whether the
plan benefitted as a result. “Good intentions and a
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011