§7476 — Declaratory judgments relating to qualification of certain retirement plans
77 cases·37 followed·4 distinguished·2 criticized·34 cited—48% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §7476
In a case of actual controversy involving—
a determination by the Secretary with respect to the initial qualification or continuing qualification of a retirement plan under subchapter D of chapter 1, or
a failure by the Secretary to make a determination with respect to—
such initial qualification, or
such continuing qualification if the controversy arises from a plan amendment or plan termination,
upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, the Tax Court may make a declaration with respect to such initial qualification or continuing qualification. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a decision of the Tax Court and shall be reviewable as such. For purposes of this section, a determination with respect to a continuing qualification includes any revocation of or other change in a qualification.
A pleading may be filed under this section only by a petitioner who is the employer, the plan administrator, an employee who has qualified under regulations prescribed by the Secretary as an interested party for purposes of pursuing administrative remedies within the Internal Revenue Service, or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
For purposes of this section, the filing of a pleading by any petitioner may be held by the Tax Court to be premature, unless the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he has complied with the requirements prescribed by regulations of the Secretary with respect to notice to other interested parties of the filing of the request for a determination referred to in subsection (a).
The Tax Court shall not issue a declaratory judgment or decree under this section in any proceeding unless it determines that the petitioner has exhausted administrative remedies available to him within the Internal Revenue Service. A petitioner shall not be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to a failure by the Secretary to make a determination with respect to initial qualification or continuing qualification of a retirement plan before the expiration of 270 days after the request for such determination was made.
No proceeding may be maintained under this section unless the plan (and, in the case of a controversy involving the continuing qualification of the plan because of an amendment to the plan, the amendment) with respect to which a decision of the Tax Court is sought has been put into effect before the filing of the pleading. A plan or amendment shall not be treated as not being in effect merely because under the plan the funds contributed to the plan may be refunded if the plan (or the plan as so amended) is found to be not qualified.
If the Secretary sends by certified or registered mail notice of his determination with respect to the qualification of the plan to the persons referred to in paragraph (1) (or, in the case of employees referred to in paragraph (1), to any individual designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary as a representative of such employee), no proceeding may be initiated under this section by any person unless the pleading is filed before the ninety-first day after the day after such notice is mailed to such person (or to his designated representative, in the case of an employee).
For purposes of this section, the term “retirement plan” means—
a pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plan described in section 401(a) or a trust which is part of such a plan, or
an annuity plan described in section 403(a).
For provisions concerning intervention by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and Secretary of Labor in actions brought under this section and right of Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to bring action, see section 3001(c) of subtitle A of title III of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-1 Interested parties
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-1(a) In general—(1) Notice requirement.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-1(b) Interested parties—(1) In general.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-1(c) Special rules.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-1(d) Definitions.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-1(e) Effective date.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-1(i) §1.7476-1(i)
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-2 Notice to interested parties
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-2(a) In general.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-2(b) Nature of notice.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-2(c) Method of giving notice.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-2(d) Examples.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-2(e) Effective date.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-3 Notice of determination
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-3(a) In general.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-3(b) Address for notice of determination—(1) Applicant.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.7476-3(c) Representative of interested parties.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.7476-1 Declaratory judgments
77 Citing Cases
We hold, for respondent, that section 1.7476-1(b)(5), Income Tax Regs., does not apply to the instant case.
Served 08/03/23 2 OPINION FOLEY, Judge: The sole issue for decision is whether the Court, on petitioner’s Motion, may dismiss a petition for declaratory judgment filed pursuant to section 7476.1 Background Petitioner, Joseph E.
Essy's account during the plan years ending in 2001, 2002, and 2004; (2) the ESOP failed to use an independent appraiser as required by section 401(a)(28)(C) to perform annual valuations ofthe employer securities the ESOT held; and/or (3) petitioner failed to timely amend the ESOP to include mandatory provisions set forth in section 414(u) as required by section 401(a).¹4 Petitioner timely filed a petition for declaratoryjudgment.
Petitioner filed a petition with this Court pursuant to section 7476 and Rule 210 seeking a declaratoryjudgment sustaining the continuing qualification ofthe ESOP and its trust.
Because we hold that the doctrine ofcollatei·al estoppel precludes our consideration ofthe anticutback issue raised by petitioners in their petition with this Court, we sustain the Commissioner's favorable determination regarding the continuing qualification ofthe Plan.
Stepnowski, petitioner, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment (Retirement Plan) pursuant to section 7476(a) challenging I respondent Commissioner's determination.
We hold that it did qualify under section 401 and, hence, that its trust was exempt from Federal income taxation under section 501.
Section 7476 provides: SEC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Petitioner seeks a declaratoryjudgment under section 7476¹ that the Ed Thielking, Inc.
In a declaratory judgment action under section 7476, we must decide whether the Commissioner, in making his determination, properly applied the law to the facts presented to him in the request for such determination.
tion under section 501(a) for the same years. Following these determinations, respondent revoked a favorable determination letter previously issued to petitioner with respect to the MGMT ESOP. Petitioner timely invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under section 7476. Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment that respondent erred in his determination that the MGMT ESOP does not meet the requirements of section 401. We hold that respondent did not err as averred. FINDINGS OF FACT2 When the petition was
On December 2, 1999, petitioners filed a petition for declaratory judgment with the Court asking for a declaration under section 7476 that the Engineers plan, as amended, does not satisfy the requirements of section 401(a).2 In response, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction asserting that petitioners lack standing to bring this action.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the jurisdictional requirements of section 7476 have been met.
MEMORANDUM OPINION LARO, Judge: Respondent moves the Court to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, alleging that petitioner's petition for declaratory judgment was not filed within the time - 2 - prescribed in section 7476.1 Petitioner objects thereto.
Revenue Service sent petitioners determination letters in February of 1976 in which it said that the plans were not entitled to special tax treatment. On April 23, 1976, petitioners filed petitions with this Court for declaratory relief pursuant to section 7476. The Commissioner, in response to the petitions for declaratory relief, filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. He contends that section 7476 is not applicable to the particular plan year before us. The plan year before us is
concluding that voluntary dismissal was appropriate for a petition under section 7345); Joseph E. Abe, DDS, Inc. v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. 1, 4 (2023) (concluding that voluntary dismissal was appropriate for a petition for declaratory judgment under section 7476). Such dismissals are consistent with Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), to which the Court may give particular weight when the Court’s Rules provide no governing procedure. See Rule 1(b).3 FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A) g
3, 2023), we granted a taxpayer’s unopposed motion to dismiss its petition brought under section 7476 to review the Commissioner’s revocation of a retirement plan’s qualification under section 401(a).
MEMORANDUM OPINION DAWSON, Judge: In this declaratoryjudgment proceeding under section 7476¹ petitioner challenges respondent's September 16, 2013, final revocation ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period under consideration, and all Rule references (continued...) SERVED Jan 19 2016 - 2 - [*2] letter determining that for its plan year ending June 30, 2003,
MEMORANDUM OPINION DAWSON, Judge: In this declaratoryjudgment proceeding under section 7476¹ petitioner challenges respondent's June 6, 2014, final nonqualification letter ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period under consideration, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.
MEMORANDUM OPINION KERRIGAN, ludge: In this declaratoryjudgment proceeding under section 7476 petitioner challenges respondent's March 20, 2012, fmal revocation letter determining that for its plan years ending September 30, 1995, and its subsequent plan years, the K.H.
In discussing the Court's rationale in denying the request, the Court stated: The legislative history ofsection 7476 makes clear that Congress did not expect the Court to conduct a trial de novo in declaratory judgment actions arising under that section, no matter whether that action arose with respect to the initial qualification or the continuing qualification ofa retirementplan.
In discussing the Court's rationale in denying the request, the Court stated: The legislative history ofsection 7476 makes clear that Congress did not expect the Court to conduct a trial de novo in declaratory judgment actions arising under that section, no matter whether that action arose with respect to the initial qualification or the continuing qualification ofa retirementplan.
MEMORANDUM OPINION GERBER, Judge: In this declaratoryjudgment proceeding under section 7476, petitioner challenges respondent's August 31, 2010, revocation letter determining that for its 1995 year and subsequentplan years the plan was not qualified under section 401(a) and that the related trust is not exempt under [ SERVED OCT 2 5 2012 -2- [*2] section 501(a).1 The broad question we consider is whether there was an abuse o
1995-422 (noting that section 7476 "does not provide a broad grant of authority to the Court to conduct a review of factual matters related to controversies over retirement plans and to fashion equitable remedies to resolve these controversies").
MEMORANDUM OPINION LARO, Judge: Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment under section 7476 that its employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), the Michael C.
1998-295." The declaratory judgment proceedings under section 7476 were added to the Code to allow this Court to review a determination letter without a deficiency notice being issued or tax being assessed .
a determination, to make a declaration with respect to the matter. Our Rules relating to declaratory judgment cases provide for consideration of evidence not in the administrative record under various circumstances. Our disposition of actions under sec. 7476 for declaratory judgment involving the initial qualification of a retirement plan, and actions under sec. 7428 for the initial qualification or classification of an exempt organization, private foundation, or private operating foundation is
The other two types of cases cited by the majority involve declaratory judgments with respect to determinations of the Commissioner under section 7428 (tax-exempt sta:us) and section 7476 (qualified status of retirement plans).7 De novo 6 The fact that our application of an abuse of discretion standard may be the subject of a trial de novo does not necessarily mean that we are free to substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner in such cases.
a determination, to make a declaration with respect to the matter. Our Rules relating to declaratory judgment cases provide for consideration of evidence not in the administrative record under various circumstances. Our disposition of actions under sec. 7476 for declaratory judgment involving the initial qualification of a retirement plan and actions under sec. 7428 for the initial qualification or classification of an exempt organization, private foundation, or private operating foundation is
osed the amendment and the continuing qualification of the plan. By letter dated September 19, 1997, respondent issued a favorable determination to the plan, as amended. Petitioner then filed a petition for declaratory judgment with this Court under section 7476. Discussion The Tax Court's jurisdiction is limited to the extent expressly permitted by statute. See sec. 7442; Trost v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 (1990). Section 7476(a) authorizes this Court to determine the outcome of a controve
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARR, Judge: This case is before the Court upon a petition for declaratory judgment under section 7476 and Rule 211.
no principal place of business or principal office or agency in any judicial circuit, then the office to which was made the return of the tax in respect of which the liability arises, (C) in the case of a person seeking a declaratory decision under section 7476, the principal place of business, or principal office or agency of the employer, (D) in the case of an organization seeking a declaratory decision under section 7428, the principal office or agency of the organization, or (E) in the case
no principal place of business or principal office or agency in any judicial circuit, then the office to which was made the return of the tax in respect of which the liability arises, (C) in the case of a person seeking a declaratory decision under section 7476, the principal place of business, or principal office or agency of the employer, (D) in the case of an organization seeking a declaratory decision under section 7428, the principal office or agency of the organization, or (E) in the case
--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Wells, Judge: The instant case is before us on a petition for declaratory judgment under section 7476. The issue presented for decision is whether a profit sharing plan sponsored by Halliburton Co. (Halliburton) experienced a partial termination under section 411(d)(3) for the plan year ending on December 31, 1986. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Ta