Guest JWB19 Posted January 11, 2010 Posted January 11, 2010 Treas. Reg. 1.7476-1(b)(6)(i) says that "In the case of an application to which paragraph (b) (1) or (2) of this section applies, an employee who is not eligible to participate in the plan shall not be an interested party if such employee is excluded from consideration for purposes of section 410(b)(1) by reason of section 410(b)(2)(B) or ©." Should the bold part be 410(b)(3)(B) or ©? It doesn't make sense to me as is.
Guest Sieve Posted January 11, 2010 Posted January 11, 2010 Mike is right. The regs for IRC Section 7476 were adopted in 1977, and IRC Section 410(b)(2) was renumbered as 410(b)(3) by 1980 legislation. So, the citation to IRC Section 410 was correct when the regs were made final, and should be appropriately adjusted to take into account subsequent changes in the IRC--Treasury just has not revised the regs. Read the reference as a citation to 410(b)(3) . . . This is not the only instance of reg citations not yet being updated.
Mike Preston Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Not to quibble, but.... The reg was adopted 5/20/1976, per my source materials. Further, the darn thing was amended 10/20/2006 so they most assuredly should have caught this error and fixed it at that time. But Larry is correct: there are many references in the regs to both code and other regs that are incorrect.
Guest Sieve Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Yes - 5/20/1976. But (also not to quibble), the -1 reg was revised not in 2006 (that was the -2 reg), but in 2002. Nevertheless, I agree that you'd think the revision would have encompassed correcting out-of-date cross references. But, that's what endears the IRS to all of us, ehh? The score is one not-to-quibble each. Duel at sunrise, 7/11, in the parking lot of Starbuck's--we'll throw regs at each other from 10 paces, and the first to develop reg-elbow loses . . .
Mike Preston Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 Surely that disadvantages the one of us with the most advanced case of reg-elbow going in to the competition!
Guest Sieve Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 Just guessing, but that would, I suspect, be me. In any event, the challenger's rules (that also would be me)--made specifically for this competition--provide that you have to show up to win. I'll be there--if you can find the right Starbucks! I'll wait for you for 9 minutes (assuming you're a full professor) . . . BYOR.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now