Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

benefits under that plan. Petitioners do not now have, nor have they ever had, any such interests under the Brewery Workers Fund.

Our jurisdiction is statutory and cannot be enlarged by the actions of the parties. See Freedman v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 564 (1979). Under section 7476, only specifically defined categories of interested parties may petition this Court for declaratory relief. Petitioners, participants in the Teamsters Fund, are not interested parties with respect to a determination as to the qualified status of the Brewery Workers Fund. We find that petitioners are statutorily barred from petitioning for declaratory relief, and therefore, lack standing to maintain this action. See American New Covenant Church v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 293 (1980).11 Accordingly, these cases must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt that a controversy exists here. But, we find that the controversy does not arise from a determination regarding the qualified status of a plan. Rather, the controversy arises from the merger agreement which, after ratifying, the Teamsters Fund trustees declined to perform because of changed circumstances which made the proposed merger less attractive. As previously noted, the Teamsters Fund was ordered by the New York Supreme Court to specifically perform the merger. Performance was conditioned on approval of the merger by the Internal Revenue Service. This approval was received in September 1976, and the New York State Supreme Court declared the funds fully integrated. Petitioners here have asked that we order revocation of the 1976 ruling. We are clearly without jurisdiction to do so. In this regard, we note that our jurisdiction is limited to determining whether a plan is or is not qualified. S. Rept. 93-383, supra, 1974-3 C.B. at 193; Wenzel v. Commissioner, 707 F.2d 694, 696 (2d Cir. 1983), affg. Memorandum Opinions of this Court.

The real controversy in these cases relates not to the Commissioner's determination, but to a merger contract

See also Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-512.

gone sour. That is, the real controversy is between the Teamsters Fund and the Brewery Workers Fund regarding a merger agreement which includes as one of its terms a requirement that the merger agreement be approved by the Internal Revenue Service. Congress gave the Tax Court jurisdiction over controversies concerning the Commissioner's determination regarding qualified status of a plan. Clearly, the merger dispute is a question of State law (see New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 591 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1979)), and not a matter within our jurisdiction under section 7476.

For the reasons stated herein, respondent former trustees' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be granted.

An appropriate order will be entered.

NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND JOHN HOH, KENNETH CARROLL, ANTHONY GRAU, AND ANGELO FERRARO,

FORMER TRUSTEES OF THE BREWERY WORKERS PENSION FUND, RESPONDENTS

Docket Nos. 12445-85R-12449-85R.

Filed May 9, 1988.

In 1973, the Brewery Workers Fund and the Teamsters Fund agreed to merge. Subsequent to the agreement, but prior to the date of the merger, Reingold Breweries, one of the largest employer contributors to the Brewery Workers Fund, ceased operations. The Teamsters Fund refused to proceed with the merger. The New York State Supreme Court ordered the Teamsters to specifically perform the merger agreement. On Sept. 28, 1976, the Internal Revenue Service issued a determination that the merger amendment would not affect the existing qualification of the Teamsters Fund. Subsequently, the New York Supreme Court declared

The cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith: New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund by Rocco DePerno. Paul F. Bush, Jack Canzoneri, T. Edward Nolan, Curtis Gunderson, and Richard Muller, docket No. 12445-85R; Peter DeMarco, docket No. 12446-85R; Richard Carbano, docket No. 12447-85R; Richard Wisnoski, docket No. 12448-85R; and Paul Litwin, docket No. 12449-85R.

the Teamsters Fund and Brewery Workers Fund fully
integrated as of Dec. 1, 1976.

On Sept. 30, 1983, Ts (Teamsters trustees) made a “com-
bined request" (1) for a determination as to the qualified
status of the Brewery Workers Fund prior to the date of the
merger, and (2) for a revocation or modification of the Sept.
28, 1976, determination. In response to the request, C
(Commissioner) determined that the Brewery Workers Fund,
as in effect prior to the merger with the Teamsters Fund,
was a qualified plan. Ts and Ps (participants in the Team-
sters Fund) bring this action for declaratory judgment. Fs
(former Brewery Workers Fund trustees), joined as additional
parties in this action, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.

Held, that Ts and Ps are not interested parties with respect to a request for a determination as to the qualified status of the Brewery Workers Fund. Held, further, that the 1983 request for a revocation or modification of the 1976 determination does not constitute a request for a determination which may form the basis for jurisdiction under sec. 7476. Held, further, that Fs' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted.

Robert Whoriskey and Lawrence V. Kelly, for the petitioners.

Sarah Hall and Daniel Wiles, for the respondent Commissioner.

Susan Martin and Jacob Friedman, for the respondent former trustees.

OPINION

NIMS, Judge: These cases were heard by Special Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos pursuant to the provisions of section 7456 of the Code.2 The Court agrees with and adopts the Special Trial Judge's opinion, which is set forth below.

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE

PANUTHOS, Special Trial Judge: Petitioners in these consolidated cases brought actions for declaratory judgment

These cases were assigned pursuant to sec. 7456 (redesignated as sec. 7443A by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 1556, 100 Stat. 2755) and Rule 180. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

[blocks in formation]

Respondents in these cases are (1) the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (hereinafter the Commissioner), and (2) John Hoh, Kenneth Carroll, Anthony Grau, and Angelo Ferraro, all of whom are former trustees of the Brewery Workers Pension Fund (hereinafter referred to as former trustees or Brewery Workers Fund trustees). These cases are before the Court on the former trustees' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

The Commissioner issued a determination letter making a favorable determination as to the qualified status of the Brewery Workers Fund as in effect prior to its merger with the Teamsters Fund. The Commissioner also determined that while a partial termination of the Brewery Workers Fund occurred before full integration of the two plans, qualification was not affected, however, because participants in the fund were fully vested in their accrued benefits to the extent funded.

Petitioners allege that, in issuing the determination letter, the Commissioner "abused his discretion and acted unreasonably and arbitrarily by not determining":

3On May 13, 1985, petitions in 10 related cases were filed. On Oct. 9, 1985, we granted petitioners' motions to consolidate the cases into two groups of five cases each; one group consisting of docket numbers 12440-85R through 12444-85R, and the other group consisting of docket numbers 12445-85R through 12449-85R. We have filed on this same date our opinion respecting docket numbers 12440-85R through 12444-85 R as Loftus v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 57 (May 9, 1988).

*By order, dated Mar. 7, 1986, we granted the Commissioner's motion to join the former trustees as additional parties to this action.

(i) that the partial termination of the Brewery Fund between January 1, 1976 and September 30, 1976 resulted in its disqualification under the Code and regulations; and,

(ii) that the disqualified Brewery Fund could not merge for Federal tax purposes with the qualified Teamsters Fund and have the merged fund qualified under section 401 of the Code; and,

(iii) that for Federal tax purposes the consolidation of the Brewery Fund with the Teamsters Fund as of December 1, 1976, pursuant to Court order, resulted in the termination and disqualification of the Brewery Fund.

Petitioners further allege that respondent failed to make a determination with respect to the continuing qualification of the Brewery Workers Fund.

The issue in these cases is whether we should exercise our jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment or whether we should dismiss these cases for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

(A) The Merger

The facts of these consolidated cases are not in dispute. An agreement and plan of integration (the merger agreement) was entered into in 1973 between the Brewery Workers Fund and the Teamsters Fund, which provided for a merger of the two funds. Subsequent to the merger agreement, Reingold Breweries, one of the largest employercontributors to the Brewery Workers Fund, ceased perations. This development made the merger much less attractive to the Teamsters Fund since it dramatically reduced the Brewery Workers Fund's prospective contributions to the joint plan without a proportionate reduction in the joint plan's prospective liabilities to Brewery Workers Fund participants. Consequently, counsel for the Teamsters Fund notified counsel for the Brewery Workers Fund that, in view of the Reingold closing, the Teamsters Fund trustees had voted not to proceed with the merger.

(B) Initial Merger Litigation

After the Teamsters Fund notified the Brewery Workers Fund that it intended not to proceed with the merger, the Brewery Workers Fund brought suit in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. On April 29, 1975, the

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »