Lee Eng'g Supply Co. v. Commissioner
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- James R. Brown & Opal Freeman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2018)
- Downing v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2002)
- Barry R. Downing and Mary A. Downing v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2002)
- Theodore Souris, P.C. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*53
In 1985, P, a corporation, decided to terminate its defined benefit pension plan (pension plan). P did not make a contribution required under the minimum funding provisions of
*189 OPINION
Hamblen,
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
Cantrel,
| Additions to tax | |||
| Year ended | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a)(1) | Sec. 6651(a)(2) |
| FYE 1985 | $ 340 | $ 76.50 | $ 85 |
| FYE 1987 | 1,624 | 365.40 | 1 |
The*55 above deficiencies result from respondent's determinations that petitioner's defined benefit pension plan (pension plan) had a $ 6,800 accumulated funding deficiency within the meaning of
The issues remaining for us to decide are whether petitioner is liable under: (1)
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time the petition was filed in this case, petitioner's principal place of business was in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Petitioner adopted a profit-sharing trust at the time of its incorporation in 1972, and added a defined benefit pension plan in 1975. Petitioner was the employer responsible for making contributions to *56 both plans. Edward Lee (Mr. Lee) is the president of petitioner as well as trustee and administrator of the pension plan. Mr. Lee retained an independent pension consulting firm, Employers' Consultants, Inc. (Consultants), to advise him with respect to the pension plan. The pension plan was consistently amended to comply with changes in the pension laws and was qualified under section 401(a) during the years in issue.
Mr. Lee decided in 1985 that petitioner could not continue funding both plans. He asked Consultants to begin the process of terminating the pension plan and to make a recommendation for the distribution of its assets. Consultants sometime thereafter informed Mr. Lee that, due to a change *191 in the pension laws, an additional contribution of $ 6,853 was due on October 15, 1985, for the pension plan. Consultants also told Mr. Lee that petitioner would be fined if it did not make the contribution. Mr. Lee resisted making the payment as it appeared to him that "there is enough money in there for what we are going to do." Furthermore, petitioner maintains that it was a financial hardship to make the contribution. However, petitioner could have but did not apply*57 for a waiver on the basis of temporary substantial business hardship under
Petitioner's FYE 1985 Form 5500-C, Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan, filed on August 23, 1985, contains a schedule of the amounts petitioner contributed to the pension plan during the plan year. On that schedule, petitioner listed that a contribution of $ 6,853 was to be made by October 15, 1985. This amount was included in the total amount credited to petitioner's funding standard account representing employer contributions to the plan in FYE 1985. The parties stipulated that petitioner's cash disbursements ledger shows a check for $ 6,800 2 was written on October 31, 1985, and deposited into the pension plan's account on November 4, 1985.
Due to the change in the pension laws requiring amendment of the pension plan, the pension plan was not terminated*58 until February 28, 1986, at which time an independent certified public accountant (C.P.A.) disbursed the funds. The pension plan's trust assets exceeded trust liabilities by $ 16,241.08 upon termination. Petitioner directed the C.P.A. to write a check for the balance remaining in the pension plan to petitioner's profit-sharing trust. A check for $ 16,241.08 was written from petitioner's pension fund and deposited into petitioner's profit-sharing trust on August 4, 1986. The pension fund account was closed a month later.
Petitioner did not file a Form 5330, Return of Initial Excise Taxes Related to Pension and Profit-Sharing Plans, for either FYE 1985 or FYE 1987.
The minimum funding requirements of
Employer contributions are totaled and credited to a plan's funding standard account for the plan's taxable year.
The parties stipulated that the $ 6,800 contribution was not made by October 15, 1985. Therefore, petitioner's pension plan had an accumulated funding deficiency for FYE 1985 for *193 purposes of
Petitioner's argument that it should not have to comply with the minimum funding requirements because it intended to terminate the pension plan is without merit. The pension plan did not terminate until FYE 1987. The minimum funding deficiency occurred for FYE 1985. Petitioner is subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code like all other taxpayers. Even if we were sympathetic to petitioner's situation, which we are not, we have no jurisdiction to grant the equitable relief sought.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the transfer is not a reversion subject to the excise tax. Rule 142(a). Petitioner does not contend that the amount transferred is statutorily excepted. Rather, petitioner argues that in 1987 it was not apparent from
This Court has not before considered the issue of whether an employer's transfer of assets from a terminating defined benefit pension plan to its defined contribution profit-sharing plan constitutes an employer reversion within the meaning of
The provisions of section 401(a)(2) allow funds from a qualified plan to revert to an employer after all plan liabilities have been satisfied. Even though such reversions are allowed, it has long been recognized that the amount of the reversion is subject to income tax. S. Rept. 1567, 57th Cong., 3d Sess. (1938), 1939-1 C.B. (Part 2) 779, 796. The excise tax on pension plan reversions was originally enacted to limit the tax incentives available for retirement savings provided through defined benefit pension plans. Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (J. Comm. Print 1987). To the extent that amounts in such plans are not used for retirement purposes and revert to the employer, Congress believed that the benefits from the deferral of tax on the earnings should be recaptured.
Funds contributed to defined benefit pension plans generate a specific benefit to employees upon retirement guaranteed by the employer. By enacting extensive statutory provisions regulating pension plans, Congress intended to protect *195 that benefit. *65 A transfer of funds to a defined contribution profit-sharing plan precludes such funds from being used in producing that benefit. In enacting the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330, Congress observed "under current law, a transfer of excess assets from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan (even if such transfer is between plans of a single employer) will give rise to ordinary income based on tax benefit principles,
*66 We recognize that
Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file a Form 5330, Return of Initial Excise Taxes Related to Pension and Profit-Sharing Plans, for FYE 1985, and under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely pay the amount of tax due. The parties stipulated that petitioner did not file a Form 5330 for FYE 1985. Furthermore, petitioner readily admits it intentionally resisted making the $ 6,800 contribution until after its October 15, 1985, due date, choosing not to avail itself of the *67 hardship waiver provisions under
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
1. To be determined.↩
2. The $ 53 difference between the $ 6,853 amount appearing on the FYE 1985 Form 5500-C and the $ 6,800 amount appearing in the statutory notice of deficiency is unexplained.↩
3. An administrative pronouncement, like a revenue ruling or revenue procedure, is not the law; it merely represents respondent's view of the law. See
.Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates, Inc. v. United States , 445 F.2d 1142, 1146-1147↩ (5th Cir. 1971)4. We observe that after the years in issue Congress added
sec. 4980(d) , in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508, sec. 12002(a), 104 Stat. 1388, 1388-562, which imposes a 50-percent tax on an employer reversion unless the employer establishes a "qualified replacement retirement plan". For a new plan to be qualified, it must have as active participants at least 95 percent of the active participants in the terminated plan who remain as employees of the employer after the termination.Sec. 4980(d)(2)(A)↩ .5. See
(holding this Court generally lacks jurisdiction over the sec. 6651(a)(2) addition to tax for failure to pay tax). Believing it appropriate for the Tax Court to have jurisdiction over such addition to tax, Congress amended sec. 6214(a) to so provide in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 1554(a), 100 Stat. 2754, effective for any action or proceeding before the Tax Court which had not become final before Oct. 22, 1986.Estate of Young v. Commissioner , 81 T.C. 879↩ (1983)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.