- 12 -
issue to be decided is whether respondent Commissioner correctly
interpreted and applied the law in determining that the amendment
did not violate the anti-cutback rule of section 411(d)(6).
Petitioner argues that, because Rule 217(a) does not make an
explicit reference to declaratory judgment actions involving the
continuing qualification of a retirement plan, the “good cause”
provision of that Rule must apply only to declaratory judgment
actions involving the initial qualification of a retirement plan.
Rule 217(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) General: Disposition of an action for
declaratory judgment which involves the initial
qualification of a retirement plan * * * will
ordinarily be made on the basis of the administrative
record, as defined in Rule 210(b)(12). Only with the
permission of the Court, upon good cause shown, will
any party be permitted to introduce before the Court
any evidence other than that presented before the
Internal Revenue Service and contained in the
administrative record as so defined. * * *
By its terms, Rule 217(a) does not expressly preclude
discovery or introduction of extrinsic evidence in a declaratory
judgment action involving the continuing qualification of a
retirement plan. Nonetheless, to permit extrinsic evidence,
other than that present in the administrative record, in such an
action would convert the declaratory judgment proceeding to a
judicial trial de novo. See Tamko Asphalt Prods., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 824, 837 (1979), affd. 658 F.2d 735 (10th
Cir. 1981); Houston Lawyer Referral Serv., Inc. v. Commissioner,
69 T.C. 570, 577 (1978); see also The Nationalist Movement v.
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