- 9 -
similar to a trust or (2) that the entity to which petitioner
made the payment was formed before June 25, 1959. Petitioner
wrote on Exhibit 12-P: “UMR was created on February 25, 2002”.
Petitioner contends that the French pension plan was formed
before June 25, 1959, because the corpus of that plan has existed
since 1949. Petitioner relies on Rapport de Gestion, UMR, which
she states is available on a Web site. We have not considered
that document because it was not offered or admitted into
evidence.
Petitioner contends that we should take judicial notice that
the corpus of petitioner’s French retirement plan has existed
since 1949. A judicially noticed fact may not be subject to
reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known
within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2)
capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid.
201(b). The UMR Web site does not meet either requirement, and
we do not take judicial notice of items appearing in it. See id.
To qualify under section 501(c)(18)(B), petitioner’s French
retirement plan must provide benefits that are payable to
employees under a classification which is set forth in the plan
and which does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated
employees. See sec. 501(c)(18)(B). Petitioner contends that her
testimony that this requirement is met is corroborated at page 4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011