Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/24426654/In-Re-Baker-Reply-to-Amicus-Brief-of-Nixon-Peabody
Timestamp: 2019-06-17 01:49:35
Document Index: 750444973

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 401', '§401', '§401', '§401', '§401', '§401', '§401', '§401', '§401', '§401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§\n401', '§ 401', '§\n401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401']

In Re Baker - Reply to Amicus Brief of Nixon Peabody | Chapter 7 (38 views)
In Re Baker - Reply to Amicus Brief of Nixon Peabody
saveSave In Re Baker - Reply to Amicus Brief of Nixon Peabo... For Later
In Re Sharlene De Ann Taylor, Debtor. The New York City Employees' Retirement System v. Jeffrey L. Sapir, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee for the Southern District of New York, and Sharlene De Ann Taylor, 243 F.3d 124, 2d Cir. (2001)
221644_1295449376sewell011911web
Appeals Case No.
: 09-13144-H
In re: Bankruptcy Case No.: 9:08-BK-11158-ALP
District Court Civil Case No.: 2:09 CV 238
SARAH E. BAKER,
ROBERT E. TARDIFF, JR. as Chapter 7 Trustee,
ON APPEAL OF ORDER FROM THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT
APPELLANT’S REPLY TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
NIXON PEABODY LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE AND FOR
Charles PT Phoenix, Esq. Phoenix Law PA
The Florida Bar No. 535591 12800 University Drive, Suite 260
CPTP@corporationcounsel.com
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1} www.floridalegalblog.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................3
II. Amicus Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP grossly misportrays I.R.C. § 401(a) as
only qualifying profit-sharing plans more than one employee in the face of
numerous code provisions clearly indicating that I.R.C. § 401(a) also applies
to plans containing a single employee ............................................................. 4
III. Amicus Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP asserts that Debtor made arguments
Debtor did not actually assert and, worse, suggests that the lower courts
considered evidence when the record clearly does not contain an evidentiary
hearing ............................................................................................................. 6
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) ........................................8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................9
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1}2 The Florida Legal Blog
FLA. STAT. ch. 222.21 (2)(a)(1) ..............................................................................7
26 U.S.C. 401; I.R.C. §401 ........................................................................................4
26 U.S.C. 401(a); I.R.C. §401(a) ...................................................................... 4, 5, 6
26 U.S.C. 401(a)(10)(A); I.R.C. §401(a)(10)(A).......................................................4
26 U.S.C. 401(a)(35)(A); I.R.C. §401(a)(35)(A).......................................................4
26 U.S.C. 401(a)(35)(E)(iii); I.R.C. §401(a)(35)(E)(iii) ...........................................4
26 U.S.C. 401(a)(35)(E)(iv)(I); I.R.C. §401(a)(35)(E)(iv)(I) ....................................4
26 U.S.C. 401(c)(1)(A); I.R.C. §401(c)(1)(A)...........................................................5
26 U.S.C. 401(c)(3); I.R.C. §401(c)(3) ......................................................................5
26 U.S.C. 401(d); I.R.C. §401(d)...............................................................................5
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.401(e)-1 ........................................................................................5
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1}3 The Florida Legal Blog
I. Amicus Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP grossly misportrays I.R.C. § 401(a)
as only qualifying profit-sharing plans more than one employee in the
face of numerous code provisions clearly indicating that I.R.C. § 401(a)
also applies to plans containing a single employee.
Amicus Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP argues that I.R.C. § 401(a) does not
apply to profit-sharing plans containing only a single owner-employee, as does
Sarah Baker’s (“Debtor”) plan. Amicus Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP states that
I.R.C. § 401(a) does not allow exemption when “it is created by an employer for
the exclusive benefit of a single, self-employee employee.” (Brief of Amicus
Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP in Support of Appellee and for Affirmance p. 5). This
argument flies in the face of numerous provisions within I.R.C. § 401 that
expressly reference one-participant retirement plans and plans benefitting only an
For example, I.R.C. § 401(a)(35)(A) indicates that a trust will not be
“qualified unless the plan meets [certain] diversification requirements,” but I.R.C.
§ 401(a)(35)(E)(iii) goes on to clarify that those requirements do not apply to a
“one-participant retirement plan.”1 Perhaps more forcefully, I.R.C. §
401(a)(10)(A) provides that “in the case of any plan … for employees some or all
I.R.C. § 401(a)(35)(E)(iv)(I) defines a “one-participant retirement plan” as “a retirement plan that on the first day
of the plan year covered only one individual … and the individual owned 100 percent of the plan sponsor (whether
or not incorporated).” Found at:
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1}4 The Florida Legal Blog
of whom are owner-employees (as defined in subsection (c)(3)2), a trust forming
part of such plan shall constitute a qualified trust under this section only if the
requirements of subsection (d) are also met” (emphasis added). I.R.C. §
401(c)(1)(A) indicates that “the term ‘employee’ includes … a self-employed
individual” and I.R.C. § 401(d) states that “a trust forming part of a pension or
profit-sharing plan … for employees some or all of whom are owner-employees
shall constitute a qualified trust” if certain conditions are met. The Internal
Revenue Service provides more clarification:
The provisions of section 401(a) relating to qualification requirements
which are generally applicable to all qualified plans … are also
generally applicable to any plan covering a self-employed individual.
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.401(e)-1.
Quite simply, I.R.C. § 401(a) incorporates and contemplates the concept that
a single, self-employed person can be the sole participant in a qualified plan. But,
broadly, the requirement under I.R.C. § 401(a) that qualification is only available
where the plan is “for the exclusive benefit of … employees” was not meant to
limit application to plans with multiple employees, but to subsume the concept that
a plan covers a single employee. Any other interpretation would render the owner-
employee and one-participant plan provisions superfluous.
I.R.C. § 401(c)(3) defines an “owner-employee” as “an employee who owns the entire interest in an
unincorporated trade or business.” Found at:
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1}5 The Florida Legal Blog
II. Amicus Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP asserts that Debtor made
arguments Debtor did not actually assert and, worse, suggests that the
lower courts considered evidence when the record clearly does not
contain an evidentiary hearing.
Beginning on page 6 of the Brief of Amicus Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP in
Support of Appellee and for Affirmance, Amicus Curiae Nixon Peabody LLP
begins planting the notion that the lower courts considered evidence as to plan
operation and that Debtor argued that plan compliance was immaterial. But, the
lower courts never held an evidentiary hearing in this case. Instead, the bankruptcy
court ruled as a matter of law that Debtor’s plan and its assets were not exempt.
While Debtor contends that the lower courts erred in interpreting the applicable
exemption statute, it is indisputable that the bankruptcy court never passed on
whether Debtor’s plan complied with I.R.C. § 401(a).
Furthermore, the notion that Debtor argues that as a matter of law that a plan
need not be operationally compliant lacks substance. Debtor never made an
argument of that type and logically could not have as the bankruptcy court ruled
that, compliant or not, Debtor’s plan assets belonged to the trustee3.
Regardless, Debtor asserts that the plan was compliant as administered by the unrelated plan administrator and as
the plan assets were held by an independent custodian under the control of an independent trustee, none of which
was disputed by the trustee or put at issue by or before the bankruptcy court. Found at:
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1}6 The Florida Legal Blog
Wherefore, Debtor respectfully moves the court to overrule the United States
Bankruptcy Court’s Order, to rule that FLA. STAT. ch. 222.21 (2)(a)(1) provides
an exemption for Keough (HR-10) plan assets, and to declare that Debtor’s
Keough plan assets are exempt under FLA. STAT. ch. 222.21 (2)(a)(1) and not
subject to the Chapter 7 trustee’s administration.
/s/ Charles PT Phoenix, Esq.________
The Florida Bar No. 535591
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1}7 The Florida Legal Blog
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed.R.App.P.32(a)(7)(B)
because this brief contains 1,174 words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Def.R.App.P.32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed.R.App.P.32 (a) (5)
and the type style requirements of Fed.R.App.P32(a)(6) because this brief has
been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Word
3. /s/ Charles PT Phoenix, Esq.________
Dated: 16 October 2009
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1}8 The Florida Legal Blog
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
regular U.S. Mail on this 16th day of October 2009 to the following counsel of
Robert E. Tardif, Jr. Dennis P. Waggoner
2430 Shadowlawn Drive, Suite 18 Suite 3700 – Bank of America Plaza
Naples FL 34112 101 East Kennedy Boulevard
Attorney for Appellee Attorneys for Nixon Peabody LLP
{2161-2161.001 00045468.DOC;1}9 The Florida Legal Blog
Documents Similar To In Re Baker - Reply to Amicus Brief of Nixon Peabody