- 14 -
supplemented in declaratory judgment actions involving the
qualification of a retirement plan unless very unusual
circumstances exist and good cause has been shown. See, e.g.,
Halliburton Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-533 (denying the
Commissioner’s motion to compel discovery in a declaratory
judgment proceeding relating to the partial termination of a
retirement plan); Dr. Erol Bastug, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra
(denying the taxpayer’s motion to calendar for trial in a
declaratory judgment proceeding relating to the initial
qualification of a retirement plan); cf. Tamko Asphalt Prods.,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. at 837 (upholding the Court’s
earlier refusal to grant the taxpayer’s request for a trial in a
declaratory judgment proceeding relating to the initial
qualification of a retirement plan). We see no reason to deviate
from the Court’s past practices in this case. Only in very
unusual circumstances and upon good cause shown will the Court
permit the administrative record to be supplemented in
declaratory judgment actions involving the initial or continuing
qualification of a retirement plan.
In the Court’s Order of July 15, 2004, we concluded that
petitioner had not shown good cause either to commence discovery
in this case or for this case to be set for trial. There is no
reason to change the analysis or the result reached in that
Order. In particular, we emphasize that the issue in this case
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011