- 2 -
challenging RC’s determination. P also filed a Motion
for an Order to Calendar for Trial and a Motion for
Permission for Discovery with the Court. The Court
denied P’s motions.
1. Held: P did not show good cause either to
commence discovery in this case or for this case to be
set for trial. The case is to be decided solely on the
administrative record.
2. Held, further, respondent Commissioner did not
err in determining that the amendment to the plan’s
lump-sum payment option did not violate the anti-
cutback rule of sec. 411(d)(6), I.R.C.
Mervin M. Wilf, for petitioner.
Brian M. Pinheiro, for respondent Hercules Incorporated.
Peter J. Gavagan, for respondent Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.
OPINION
COHEN, Judge: Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(respondent Commissioner) issued a favorable determination letter
to respondent Hercules Incorporated (Hercules) in which
respondent Commissioner determined that the Pension Plan of
Hercules Incorporated, as amended (the amended plan), met the
qualification requirements of section 401(a). Charles P.
Stepnowski, petitioner, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment
(Retirement Plan) pursuant to section 7476(a) challenging
respondent Commissioner’s determination. Hercules was joined as
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