Opinion ID: 479181
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count XII

Text: 68 The district court held that Ward did not violate Article V of the Plan by failing to make a contribution in 1974. The court concluded that because the Internal Revenue Code did not require contributions at any particular time, no violation of Article V's mandate to make contributions necessary under the Code occurred. Cunha, 545 F.Supp. at 97-98. Moreover, prior to trial, the court held that Ward's failure to contribute did not constitute a diversion of trust funds for purposes other than for the participants' exclusive benefit. 13 69 On appeal, the Employees do not contest these district court's holdings. 14 Instead, they argue that the pension brochure 's promise to pay all the costs of pensions to which the participants are entitled proves that the Plan 's language in Article V is ambiguous. 70 The Employees did not raise this argument before the district court. We decline the Employees' invitation to look to documents outside the Plan now in order to create an ambiguity and a new issue on appeal.