Sherwin-Williams Company Employee Health Plan Trust v. Commissioner

115 T.C. No. 33
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 9, 2000
Docket21333-97
StatusUnknown

This text of 115 T.C. No. 33 (Sherwin-Williams Company Employee Health Plan Trust v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sherwin-Williams Company Employee Health Plan Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. No. 33 (tax 2000).

Opinion

115 T.C. No. 33

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLAN TRUST, KEY TRUST COMPANY OF OHIO, TRUSTEE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 21333-97. Filed November 9, 2000.

Trust (T), a tax-exempt voluntary employees’ beneficiary association described in sec. 501(c)(9), I.R.C., set aside for each year at issue a certain amount of investment income to provide for the payment of reasonable costs of administration directly con- nected with providing for the payment of health care benefits (amount of investment income at issue).

Held: In determining for each year at issue the unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) of T under sec. 512(a)(3)(A), I.R.C., the amount of investment income at issue is subject to the limitation prescribed by sec. 512(a)(3)(E)(i), I.R.C. Held, further, in calculating for each year at issue the limitation prescribed by sec. 512(a)(3)(E)(i), I.R.C., the amount of assets that T set aside to provide for the payment of health care benefits, including reasonable costs of administration directly connected with providing for the payment of such benefits, is not to be reduced by - 2 -

the amount of the reserve described in sec. 419A(c)(2)(A), I.R.C., for post-retirement medical benefits. Held, further, because of the limitation prescribed by sec. 512(a)(3)(E)(i), I.R.C., in deter- mining for each year at issue the UBTI of T under sec. 512(a)(3)(A), I.R.C., the amount of investment income at issue may not be excluded as exempt function income.

Michael T. Cummins and Robert K. Olson, for petitioner.

Mark L. Hulse, for respondent.

OPINION1

CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following defi-

ciencies in the Federal income tax (tax) of The Sherwin-Williams

Company Employee Health Plan Trust (Trust):

Year Deficiency 1991 $489,941 1992 339,924

The issues for decision are:

(1) In determining for each year at issue the unrelated

business taxable income (UBTI) of the Trust under section

512(a)(3)(A),2 is the amount of investment income that the Trust

1 Unless otherwise indicated, our Opinion pertains to 1991 and 1992, the years at issue. 2 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 3 -

set aside3 to provide for the payment of reasonable costs of

administration directly connected with providing for the payment

of health care benefits subject to the limitation prescribed by

section 512(a)(3)(E)(i)? We hold that it is.

(2) In calculating for each year at issue the limitation

prescribed by section 512(a)(3)(E)(i), is the amount of assets

that the Trust set aside to provide for the payment of health

care benefits, including reasonable costs of administration

directly connected with providing for the payment of such bene-

fits, to be reduced by the amount of the reserve described in

section 419A(c)(2)(A) for post-retirement medical benefits

(reserve for post-retirement medical benefits)? We hold that it

is not.

Background

This case was submitted fully stipulated. The facts that

have been stipulated are so found except as stated herein.

At the time of the filing of the petition, the Trust’s

address was in care of its trustee, Key Trust Company of Ohio,

N.A. (Trustee), in Cleveland, Ohio.

On December 30, 1987, The Sherwin-Williams Company (Sherwin-

Williams) established the Trust to fund health care benefits for

participants in The Sherwin-Williams health care plan (Sherwin-

3 All references herein to an amount set aside are to an amount set aside within the meaning of sec. 512(a)(3)(B). - 4 -

Williams health care plan participants). On September 27, 1988,

the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the Trust

was exempt from tax because it qualified as a voluntary employ-

ees’ beneficiary association described in section 501(c)(9). The

Trust maintained that qualification during the years at issue.

(We shall refer to a tax-exempt voluntary employees’ beneficiary

association described in section 501(c)(9) as a VEBA.)

The Trust agreement establishing the Trust provided in

pertinent part:

8.2 Payment of Benefits. * * * Any Trust Fund income not used in the year in which it was earned to provide life, sickness, accident or other benefits described in Section 501(c)(9) of the Code and the regulations thereunder or to pay reasonable admin- istrative costs associated with the delivery of those benefits shall be set aside to provide for the payment of the benefits and benefit costs described in Section 512(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Code and limited by Section 512(a)(3)(E) of the Code in the immediately following year. * * *

The Trust derived its income from (1) member contributions

from Sherwin-Williams and Sherwin-Williams health care plan

participants and (2) investment income. The Trust set aside, and

subsequently expended, income to provide for the payment of

health care benefits and reasonable costs of administration

directly connected with providing for the payment of such bene-

fits. The amounts of income that the Trust set aside to provide

for the payment of reasonable costs of administration directly

connected with providing for the payment of health care benefits - 5 -

equaled $1,580,455 for 1991 and $1,853,529 for 1992.4

The amounts of assets that the Trust set aside as of the

close of the years at issue to provide for the payment of health

care benefits and reasonable costs of administration directly

connected with providing for the payment of such benefits were

$41,975,366 and $45,637,659, respectively.

The Trust’s account limit, as defined in section 419A(c),

for its qualified asset account, as defined in section 419A(a),

was $64,615,9365 for 1991 and $84,192,933 for 1992. The forego-

ing account limits for 1991 and 1992 included $53,313,236 and

$71,602,395, respectively, attributable to a reserve for post-

retirement medical benefits.

The Trust filed Forms 990, Return of Organization Exempt

From Income Tax (Form 990), and Forms 990-T, Exempt Organization

Business Income Tax Return (Form 990-T), in which it reported as

unrelated business income $1,851,399 and $1,155,793 of investment

4 The costs for 1992 ($1,853,529) were paid first from in- vestment income for that year. 5 The parties stipulated that the Trust’s account limit for 1991, as defined in sec. 419A(c), was $65,652,991. However, that stipulation is contrary to the record in this case. The record establishes, and we have found, that that account limit was $64,615,936. We may, and we shall in this instance, disregard a stipulation between the parties where the stipulation is clearly contrary to the facts established by the record. See Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 181, 195 (1989). - 6 -

income for 1991 and 1992, respectively.6 In its Forms 990-T for

1991 and 1992, the Trust claimed as deductions directly connected

with its unrelated business income (1) “Compensation of officers,

directors, and trustees” in the amounts of $1,456,954 and

$1,618,779, respectively, and (2) “Other deductions” in the

amounts of $156,084 and $287,450, respectively. Of the foregoing

total deductions claimed in the Trust’s Forms 990-T for 1991 and

1992, $1,580,455 and $1,853,529, respectively, constitute reason-

able costs of administration directly connected with providing

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Fernandez v. Commissioner
114 T.C. No. 21 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. Commissioner
90 T.C. No. 68 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner
93 T.C. No. 19 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Casa de La Jolla Park, Inc. v. Commissioner
94 T.C. No. 23 (U.S. Tax Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 T.C. No. 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwin-williams-company-employee-health-plan-trust-v-commissioner-tax-2000.