- 11 -
initial or continuing qualification of a retirement plan under
section 401(a), properly applied the law to the facts presented
in the request for such determination. Thompson v. Commissioner,
71 T.C. 32, 36-37 (1978); see H. Rept. 93-807, at 108 (1974),
1974-3 C.B. (Supp.) 236, 343; S. Rept. 93-383, at 114 (1973),
1974-3 C.B. (Supp.) 80, 193; see also Wenzel v. Commissioner, 707
F.2d 694, 696 (2d Cir. 1983), affg. T.C. Memo. 1982-595; McManus
v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 79, 87 (1989).
As a preliminary matter, we address petitioner’s contention
that the Court should reconsider its Order dated July 15, 2004,
and grant petitioner’s Motion for an Order to Calendar for Trial
and petitioner’s Motion for Permission for Discovery. Other than
making several conclusory statements as to the necessity of
“getting the facts”, petitioner has not discussed how discovery
and trial will assist the Court in reaching a decision on the
question of law that is before it in this case, i.e., 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). Rather, petitioner asserts
that Hercules misrepresented to the IRS the effect of the plan
amendment. Respondent Commissioner has maintained throughout
these proceedings that (1) respondent Commissioner was aware of
the amendment to the lump-sum payment option at the time that the
favorable determination letter was issued to Hercules and (2) the
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