- 3 -
party/respondent to this case by Order dated August 20, 2003.
See Rule 215(a)(2).
The principal issue for decision is whether respondent
Commissioner erred in determining that the amendment to the
plan’s lump-sum payment option did not violate the anti-cutback
rule of section 411(d)(6).
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
Background
The parties have stipulated the administrative record. That
record is incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner’s
address was in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, at the time that the
Petition for Declaratory Judgment (Retirement Plan) was filed.
Hercules maintained its principal office in Wilmington, Delaware,
at the time that the Petition for Declaratory Judgment
(Retirement Plan) was filed.
The Pension Plan of Hercules Incorporated (the plan) is a
defined benefit plan as defined under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829. The
plan was established in 1913, and it uses the calendar year as
its plan year. On or about February 12, 1996, the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) issued a favorable determination letter to
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