Stepnowski v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

5 Citing cases

  1. RSW Enters., Inc. v. Comm'r

    143 T.C. No. 21 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 26, 2014)   Cited 4 times

    And respondent argues that summary judgment is appropriate because our review is limited to the administrative record. Respondent cites Stepnowski v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 198 (2005), aff'd, 456 F.3d 320 (3d Cir. 2006) as support for the proposition that we are limited to the administrative record; however, respondent's position is contradicted by our Rules, which provide that disposition of an action for declaratory judgment involving a revocation "may be made on the basis of the administrative record alone only where the parties agree that such record contains all the relevant facts and that such facts are not in dispute." Rule 217(a) (emphasis added).

  2. Stepnowski v. Hercules, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 04-2296 (E.D. Pa. May. 26, 2005)

    The third count of the complaint alleges that the plan amendment violated the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA. I am inclined to dismiss this count based on the recent ruling of the Unites States Tax Court, which held that the Commissioner did not err in his determination that the Hercules plan amendment did not violate the anti-cutback rule of 26 U.S.C. ยง 411(d)(6). Charles P. Stepnowski v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Hercules Incorporated, 124 T.C. No. 12 (U.S. Tax Ct. Apr. 26, 2005). Turning to the issue of class certification, Plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all Hercules Pension Plan participants who retired, or who will retire, on or after January 1, 2002.

  3. Mira Vista Homeowners Ass'n v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 14901-22X (U.S.T.C. Jan. 28, 2025)

    However, we have also said that for "good cause shown" we may go beyond the administrative record involving the initial qualification or classification of an exempt organization. See RSW Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. 401, 406 (2014); see also Stepnowski v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 198 (2006). The parties both contend that the standard of review to be applied in this case is de novo.

  4. Mira Vista Homeowners Ass'n v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 14901-22X (U.S.T.C. Sep. 25, 2024)

    . However, we have also said that for "good cause shown" we may go beyond the administrative record involving the initial qualification or classification of an exempt organization. See RSW Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. 401, 406 (2014); see also Stepnowski v. Commissioner 124 T.C. 198 (2006).

  5. Swan Profit v. Commissioner

    No. 23853-09X (U.S.T.C. Mar. 15, 2011)

    In a declaratory judgment action, we are limited to deciding whether respondent, in making a determination as to the initial or continuing qualification of a retirement plan under section 401(a), properly applied the relevant law to the facts presented. Stepnowski v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 198, 204 (2005), affd. 456 F.3d 320 (3d Cir. 2006); Thompson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 32, 36-37 (1978); see also Simmons v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 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"). Respondent has broad discretion under section 7805(b) to revoke a ruling retroactively, and his determination is reviewable by the courts only for abuse of discretion.