postretirement medical trust in 1991 and, on Ps’

consolidated return for 1991, claimed a deduction for the contribution as an addition to a “qualified asset account” pursuant to sec. 419A(b), I.R.C.

R determined that Ps’ method for computing the 1991 contribution for postretirement benefits for retirees was improper and resulted in a contribution that exceeded the account limit for a reserve under sec. 419A(c)(2), I.R.C. R further determined deficiencies for years 1992-94 as a result of the determined overfunding in 1991.

Held

, with respect to an employee who is retired when the reserv e is created, the present value of that employee’s projected benefit may be allocated to the year the reserve is created. Accordingly, Ps’ contributions to the postretirement me dical trust for 1991 did not cause the qualified asset account to exceed the account limit under sec. 419A(b), I.R.C., with respe ct to the reserve for postretirement medical benefits provided in sec. 419A(c)(2), I.R.C.

Walter A. Pickhardt

, Mark A. Hager , and Andrew T. Gardner , for petitioners.

Alan M. Jacobson

, Randall P. Andreozzi , Christa A. Gruber , and James S. Stanis , for respondent.

Contents

FINDINGS OF FACT ....................... 4

A. Background ........................ 5

B. Norwest’s Welfare Benefit Plans ............. 6

C. Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of

Financial Accounting Standards No. 106 .......... 8

D. Norwest’s Contributions to the Postretirement Medical

Trust ......................... 11

1. Funding the Postretirement Medical Trust for 1991 . 11

2. Funding the Postretirement Medical Trust for 199294 ........................ 12 3. Mercer’s Actuarial Assumptions for the 1991-94 Contributions to the Postretirement Medical Trust . 13 4. Contributions to the Postretirement Medical Trust . 15 E. Respondent’s Determinations ............... 15 OPINION ........................... 15 A. Statutory Framework: Sections 419 and 419A ...... 15 B. Method for Computing the Account Limit With Respect to a Reserve ........................ 17 1. Actuarial Cost Methods .............. 18 a. Aggregate Cost Method ............ 20 b. Entry Age Normal Cost Method ......... 20 c. Individual Level Premium Cost Method ..... 21 2. Computations by the Experts ............ 22 a. Mr. Cohen .................. 22 b. Mr. Scharmer ................. 23 c. Mr. Daskais ................. 25 3. Positions of the Parties ............. 33 4. Statutory Construction .............. 34 5. The Statute .................... 35 a. Reserve ................... 36 b. Reserve Funded Over the Working Lives of the Covered Employees and Actua rially Determined on a Level Basis ............... 39 (i) Reserve Funded Over the Working Lives of the Covered Employees .......... 40 (ii) Reserve Actuarially Determined on a Level Basis .................. 46 C. Investment Rates .................... 51 JACOBS, Judge : Respondent determined deficiencies in Federal income tax and accuracy-related penalties with regard to petitioners’ consolidated returns for 1990-94 as follows:

12484-99 ( which was after the merger), its principal place of business was in San Francisco, California.

B. Norwest’s Welfare Benefit Plans

On January 1, 1930, Norwest establ ished the Norwest Corp. Medical Plan, also known as the Norwest Corp. Hospital-Medical Plan (the medical plan). The medical plan is a self-insured welfare plan providing for the payment (or reimbursement) of all or a portion of covered medical expenses incurred by Norwest’s eligible employees (including eligible retired employees) and their eligible dependents. Since June 1, 1957, the medical plan has provided postretirement medical benefits (i.e., medical benefits for its retirees), pursuant to a rider issued by Prudential Insurance Co. of America, relating to Norwest’s group health insurance policy. Over the years, Norwest established other plans, in addition to the medical plan, to provide benefits for Norwest’s eligible employees (including under some plans retired employees) and their eligible dependents. The employee benefit plans include a long-D. Norwest’s Contributions to the Postretirement Medical Trust For the years 1991-94, Norwest made contributions to the postretirement medical trust for the purpo se of providing postretirement medical benefits.

1. Funding the Postretirement Medical Trust for 1991

During the years at is sue, William M. Mercer, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Mercer), a national actuari al firm, prepared actuarial funding valuations for Norwest’s pension plans and postretirement medical plans. Sometime in late 1990/early 1991, Norwest ex pressed to Mercer an interest in funding its retiree medical benefits plan. Norwest understood that employers were permitted a tax deduction for funding a reserve for postretirement medical benefits.

On April 14, 1992, Mercer prepared and presented to Norwest a valuation report entitled “Norwest Corporation Actuarial Funding V aluation of the Post-retirement Medical Plans as of January 1, 1991" (the 1991 valuation). Mercer computed the present value of future medical benefits to be $14,096,473 for active employees and $27,759,057 for re tired employees. In determining these computations, Mercer used a pretax investment rate assumption of 9 percent and an after-tax investment rate of 5.5 percent. Mercer divided the $14,096,473 for active employees by the “average actuarial present value of future service” for the active employees (4.81) to produce a 1991 funding amount of $2,930,660 for active employees. Mercer determined that, because the retired employees had no remaining working life, the present value of future benefits f or retired employees ($27,759,057) could be funded in 1991. Mercer believed that Norwest’s resulting reserve for active and retired employees ($30,689,717) would be with in the section 419A(c)(2) account limit.

On the basis of the 1991 valuation report, Norwest contributed $30,689,717 to the postretirement medical trust in 1991. On the consolidated return for 1991, Norwest claimed a deduction for the contribution as an addition to a “qualified asset account” pursuant to section 419A(b).

2. Funding the Postretirement Medical Trust for 1992-94

At the request of Norwest, Mercer prepared actuarial funding valuation reports as of January 1 for each year 1992-94, relating to the funding of the postretirement medical trust (the 1992-94 valuation reports). In the 1992-94 valuation reports, Mercer computed the end-of-year contributions to be $6,859,600, $11,308,043, and $12,247,933, respectively. Mercer calculated the contribution amount to be equal to a fraction. The numerator of the fraction was the present value of future benefits for active employees and retirees, reduced by the sum of the value of (a) the postretirement medical trust assets and (b) the sectio n 401(h) account assets. The denominator of the fraction was the average present value of future working lifetimes of the employees. The present value of the future working life of an employee is comparable to the present value of an annuity (computed with the actuarial interest rate used by the plan) that pays $1 each year until the employee is expected to retire.

3. Mercer’s Actuarial Assumptions for the 1991-94

Contributions to the Postretirement Medical Trust

In order to compute the present value of future benefits in the 1991-94 valuation reports, Mercer made certain actuarial a ssumptions, including investment rates, the number of employees who would “retire, die, terminate their services or become disabled, their ages at termination, and their expected benefits.” Mercer requested Norwest to provide an estimate of Norwest’s effective tax rates for years 1991-94. Norwest advised Mercer that those tax rates would be approximately 39 percent in 1991-92 and 40 percent in 1993-94.

The pretax and after-tax investment rates Mercer used in the

1991-94 valuation reports were as follows:

1991 1992 1993 1994 Pretax investment rate 9.00% 8.00% 6.00% 6.00% After-tax investment rate 5.50 4.90 3.60 3.60 The following chart illustrates the various factors disclosed in the 1991-94 valuation reports (minor computational discrepancies are unexplained):

Valuation Date

1/1/91 1/1/92 1/1/93 1/1/94 1. Actuarial present value of projected benefits Active employees $13,361,586 $38,521,857 $62,860,146 $83,594,015 Retired employees 26,311,902 36,694,928 47,731,960 48,947,859 Total 39,673,488 75,216,785 110,592,106 132,541,874 2. Actuarial value of assets VEBA -0- 30,736,554 30,176,217 39,940,676 401(h) -0-1,125,467 1,172,269 7,598,653 Total -0- 31,862,021 31,348,486 47,539,329 3. Actuarial present value of future normal costs [1-2]¹

13,361,588 43,354,764 79,243,620 85,002,545 4. Actuarial present value of future service 4.81 6.63 7.26 7.19 5. Normal cost at beginning of year [3/4] 2,777,877 6,539,180 10,915,099 11,822,329 6. Maximum contribution² a. Paid at beginning of year 29,089,779 6,539,180 10,915,099 11,822,329 b. Interest to yearend 1,599,938 320,420 392,944 425,604 c. Paid at yearend [a + b] 30,689,717 6,859,600 11,308,043 12,247,933¹ In 1991, this is the present value of active benefits only, excluding the 1991 net benefit costs.² In 1991, this includes the normal cost for active participants, plus the entire present value for those retired as of Jan. 1, 1991, excluding the retirees’ 1991 net benefit costs.

additional reserve funded over the working lives of the covered employee s and actuarially determined on a level basis (using assumptions that are reasonable in the aggregate) as necessary for postretirement medical and life in surance benefits. Sec. 419A(c)(1) and (2).

At issue in this case is the computation of the account limit for the reserve necessary for postre t irement medical benefits provided under section 419A(c)(2). Petitioners and respondent disagree as to the proper method for computing the account limit for “a reserve funded over the working lives of the covered em ployees and actuarially determined on a level basis (using assumptions that are reasonable in the aggregate) as necessary for post-retirement medical benefits”. Additionally, respondent asserts that the investment rates petitioners used in computing the reserve were too low.

B. Method for Computing the Account Lim it With Respect to a

Reserve

For 1991, Mercer computed Norwest’s contribution to the postretirement medical trust by including (1) the present value of postretirement medical benefits for the active employees amortized over the employees’ remaining working lives, and (2) the entire present value of the postretirement medical benefits for the retirees funded in 1 year (the Mercer method). Respondent asserts that Mercer’s methodology in computing Norwest’s 1991 contribution for medical benefits to retirees was improper and resulted in a to when employees will retire, how long they will live after retirement, how many will have spouses entitled to benefits, the annual cost of the benefits for each retired employee or spouse, and an interest rate for discounting the stream of benefits to present value.

An actuary uses an actuarial cost method to assign the present value of promised benefits to individual plan years as an annual cost. The portion of the total cost of the plan that is assigned by the actuarial cost method to the current year or to a future year is called the normal cost.

In general, six actuarial cost methods (or variations thereof) are used for purposes of computing pension costs. They include (1) the unit credit method (also known as the accrued benefit cost method); (2) the entry age normal cost method; (3) the individual level premium cost method; (4) the aggregate cost method; (5) the attained age normal cost method; and (6) the frozen initial liability cost method. The methods discussed by the parties’ experts are the aggregate cost method (resp o ndent’s preferred method), the entry age normal cost method (petitioners’ preferred method), and the individual level premium cost method (the method Mercer used in 1991 and the on e which we find satisfies the requirements of section 419A(c)(2)).

a. Aggregate Cost Method The aggregate cost method calculates costs for all employees on an aggregate basis. The aggregate cost method computes normal costs in relation to the assets of the fund; this method does not calculate an accrued liability independent of those assets. In computing the normal cost under the aggregate cost method, the value of the plan assets is subtracted from the present value of future benefits for all particip ants. The remaining present value of future benefits is then divided by the sum of the present v alue of the future working lives of the active employees. The present value of the future working life of an employee is comparable to the present value of an annuity (computed with the actuarial interest rate used b y the plan) that pays $1 each year until the employee is expected to retire.

b. Entry Age Normal Cost Method The entry age normal cost method can be applied on an indivi dual or aggregate basis; in this case, it is applied on an individual basis. Under the entry age normal cost method, the actu arial present value of each employee’s projected benefit is spread over the entire length of the employee’s service, beginning at the date the employee began service with the employer and ending with the anticipated normal retirement date.

The normal cost computed under the entry age norma l cost method is a dollar amount which, if paid ann ually and allowed to accumulate from the date the employee began service until the projected retirement date of that employee, will have accumulated at retirement the amount necessary to fully fund the benefit to the covered employee. The actuarial accrued liability is the portion of the actuarial present value that is not provided for by future normal costs.

c. Individual Level Premium Cost Method Th e individual level premium cost method is an individual method, similar to the entry age normal cost method. Under the individual level premium cost method, the normal cost is separately determined for each covered emplo yee as a level dollar amount which, if accumulated from the later of the date the plan is established or the date that the employee was hired, would accumulate at retirement the amount neces sary to fully fund the benefit to the covered employee.

The primary difference between the individual level premium cost method and the entry age normal cost method is the date when normal cost is assumed t o commence. If the plan is established after the employee is hired, under the entry age normal cost method, normal cost is assumed to have retroactively commenced at the date of hire. Under the individual level premium cost method, normal cost begins no earlier than the date the plan is established.

2. Computations by the Experts

The parties’ experts described the way s that actuaries interpret the account limit for a reser ve provided in section 419A(c)(2) and made computations using variations of the aggregate and entry age normal cost methods.

a. Mr. Cohen Mr. Cohen, one of petitioners’ experts, is an expert in actuarial sc ience and a principal at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, advi s ing clients on various matters involving actuarial, tax, pension, and postretirement medical issues. He is a fellow of the Society of Actuaries, an enrolled actuary under ERISA, and a member of the American Academy of Actuaries. From 1970-86, Mr. Cohen was employed by the Internal Revenue Service, serving in a variety of positions, including director of the Employee Plans, Technical and Actuarial Division.

Mr. Cohen us es the terms “reserve” and “accrued liability” interchangeably and posits that the reserve for retirees is the present value of future benefits. In Mr. Cohen’s opinion, the aggregate cost method is not appropriate for computing the account limit for a reserve for postretirement benefits because that method does not directly compute an accrued liability and fails to fully fund the reserve for an employee upon retirement. In his opinion, the entry age normal cost method is the appropriate method because that method allocates the cost over the entire working life of an employee, directly computes an accrued liability, and provides for full funding upon retirement.

Mr. Cohen opined that (1) the account limit for the reserve is equal to the reserve (accrued liability) computed under the entry age normal cost method, (2) for retirees, the reserve (accrued liability) is the present value of future benefits, and (3) for active employees, the reserve is the present value of future benefits minus the present value of future normal costs. b. Mr. Scharmer Mr. Scharmer is an expert in actuarial science and is a principal at Mercer. He is a fellow of the Society of Actuaries, an enrolled actuary under ERISA, a member of the American Academy of Actuaries, and a member of the Conference of Actuaries. Mr. Scharmer opined that the account limit for a reserve under section 419A(c)(2) wa s equal to the accrued liability using the entry age normal cost method. For 1991-94, Mr. Scharmer calculated the account limit for the reserve by applying the entry age normal cost method and by using the same facts and assumptions that Mercer relied upon when it prepared the 1991-94 valuation reports. Mr. Scha rmer computed the accrued liability (dollars in millions) on the valuation date for each year as follows:

1991 1992 1993 1994 A. Investment return 5.5% 4.9% 3.6% 3.6% B. Present value accrued benefits (beginning of year)

a. Active $14.7 $38.5 $62.9 $83.6 b. Retired 28.2 36.7 47.7 48.9 c. Total 42.9 75.2 110.6 132.5 C. Accrued liability (beginning of year)

a. Active $12.6 $28.7 44.7 $59.4 b. Retired 28.2 36.7 47.7 48.9 c. Total 40.8 65.4 92.4 108.3 D. Normal cost (beginning of year) 0.3 1.2 2.5 3.3 E. Accrued liability (yearend)

a. Active $12.3 $31.2 $48.7 $64.7 b. Retired 27.8 34.5 45.2 45.8 c. Total 40.1 65.7 93.9 110.5 F. Account limit 40.1 65.7 93.9 110.5 G. Plan assets (VEBA + 401(h)) -0-29.3 28.0 44.1 H. Deductible limit 40.1 36.4 65.9 66.4 Mr. Scharmer also calculated the account limit for the reserve by varying the application of the afore mentioned methodology to reflect the investment rates Mr. Daskais proposed. Under these computations, he determined that the accrued liability (dollars in millions) for 1991-94 was as follows:

1991 1992 1993 1994 A. Investment return 6.0% 5.7% 4.9% B. Accrued liability (beginning of year)

a. Active $10.3 $26.1 $35.0 $51.6 b. Retired 26.0 32.3 40.0 42.4 c. Total 36.3 58.4 75.0 94.0 C. Account limit 36.3 58.4 75.0 94.0 D. Plan assets (VEBA + 401(h)) -0-29.6 28.6 44.7 E. Deductible limit 36.3 28.8 46.4 49.3 acknowledged that the reserve funded using the aggregate cost method will not be fully funded with respect to an individual employee upon retirement. In Mr. Daskais’s opinion, full funding upon retirement of an individual employee is not required; in his opinion the end of the working lives of covered employees occurs when the employment of all covered employees has terminated. Mr. Daskais computed the maximum contribution for 1991-94 to the postreti rement medical trust deductible under section 419 by applying the aggregate cost method using the same actuarial values (including the investment rate) Mercer used, as follows:

1991 1992 1993 1994 A. Investment return 5.5% 4.9% 3.6% 3.6% B. Present value accrued benefits a. Active $13,361,586 $38,521,857 $62,860,146 $83,594,015 b. Retired 26,311,902 36,694,928 47,731,960 48,947,859 c. Total 39,673,488 75,216,785 110,592,106 132,541,874 C. Value of assets (beginning of year)

a. VEBA --- 30,736,554 30,176,217 39,940,676 b. 401(h) --- 1,125,467 1,172,269 7,598,653 c. Total --- 31,862,021 31,348,486 47,539,329 D. Nondeductible contribution from prior years (O from prior year) --- 22,034,781 14,394,743 14,426,384 E. Net value of assets¹ --- 9,827,240 16,953,743 33,112,945 F. Present value future normal costs² 39,673,488 65,389,545 93,638,363 99,428,929 G. Average present value of future service 4.81 6.63 7.26 7.19 H. Normal cost (beginning of year)³

8,248,126 9,862,676 12,897,846 13,828,780 I. Benefits paid during year N/A 4,078,160 4,859,441 5,301,930 J. Employee contributions during year N/A 473,833 736,176 784,906 K. Interest to yearend⁴ 453,647 821,352 958,237 1,335,044 L. Account limit (yearend)⁵

8,701,773 15,781,474 25,514,292 36,161,092 M. Actual contribution 30,689,717 2,170,000 13,966,816 12,247,933 N. Value of assets (yearend) 30,736,554 30,176,217 39,940,676 47,668,557 O. Nondeductible contribution carryforward⁶ 22,034,781 14,394,743 14,426,384 11,507,465 P. Deductible limit⁷ 8,654,936 9,810,038 13,935,175 15,166,852 In Mr. Daskais’s opinion, the investment rates Mercer used were unreasonably low. Mr. Daskais recalculated the contribution l imit by applying the aggregate cost method using the Mercer assumptions but substituting investment rates that, in his opinion, were reasonable. Under these computations, he determined that the maximum contributions for 1991-94 were as follows:

1991 1992 1993 1994 A. Investment return 6.6% 6.0% 5.7% 4.9% B. Present value accrued benefits a. Active $11,154,103 $30,515,975 $38,396,684 $61,044,923 b. Retired 23,798,600 33,006,450 38,374,995 42,599,819 c. Total 34,952,703 63,522,425 76,771,679 103,644,742 C. Value of assets (beginning of year)

a. VEBA --- 30,736,554 30,176,217 39,940,676 b. 401(h) --- 1,125,467 1,172,269 7,598,653 c. Total --- 31,862,021 31,348,486 47,539,329 D. Nondeductible contribution from prior years (O from prior year) --- 22,679,988 16,144,825 19,283,596 E. Net value of assets¹ --- 9,182,033 15,203,661 28,255,733 F. Present value future normal costs² 34,952,703 54,340,392 61,568,018 75,389,009 G. Average present value of future service 4.62 6.26 6.46 6.68 H. Normal cost (beginning of year)³

7,557,754 8,682,914 9,523,819 11,286,962 I. Benefits paid during year N/A 4,078,160 4,859,441 5,301,930 J. Employee contributions during year N/A 473,833 736,176 784,906 K. Interest to yearend⁴ 498,812 896,239 1,225,134 1,454,591 L. Account limit (yearend)⁵

8,056,566 14,031,392 20,657,080 28,881,609 M. Actual contribution 30,689,717 2,170,000 13,966,816 12,247,933 N. Value of assets (yearend) 30,736,554 30,176,217 39,940,676 47,668,557 O. Nondeductible contribution carryforward⁶ 22,679,988 16,144,825 19,283,596 18,786,948 P. Deductible limit⁷ 8,009,729 8,705,163 10,828,045 12,744,581 Mr. Daskais opined that, if the funding method used to calculate the reserve computes an accrued liability, that liability must be amortized. In Mr. Daskais’s opinion, since there are no s pecific amortization rules applicable to the fundin g of postretirement medical benefits in section 419A or in the income tax regulations, the amortizatio n rules applicable to pensions should be applied.

Mr. Daskais calculated the contribution limit by applying the entry age normal cost method a nd by using the same facts and assumptions Mercer used. He amortized the accrued liability over the present value of the remaining working lives of the active employees. Under these computations, he determined that the maximum contributions (dollars in millions; discrepancies attributable to rounding) for 1991-94 were as follows: 1991 1992 1993 1994 A. Investment return 5.5% 4.9% 3.6% 3.6% B. Present value accrued benefits a. Active $13.4 $38.5 $62.9 $83.6 b. Retired 26.3 36.7 47.7 48.9 c. Total 39.7 75.2 110.6 132.5 C. Accrued liability a. Active 11.3 28.7 44.7 59.4 b. Retired 26.3 36.7 47.7 48.9 c. Total 37.6 65.4 92.4 108.3 D. Normal cost 0.3 1.2 2.5 3.3 E. Average present value of future service 4.81 6.63 7.26 7.19 F. Amortized accrued liability from prior years¹ --- 8.6 15.5 25.5 G. Remaining unamortized accrued liability² 37.6 56.8 76.9 82.8 H. Amortization of accrued liability³ 7.8 8.6 10.6 11.5 I. Account limit (beginning of year)⁴

8.1 18.3 28.6 40.3 J. Interest to yearend 0.4 0.9 1.0 1.5 K. Account limit (yearend)⁵

8.6 19.2 29.7 41.7 L. Benefits paid less employee contributions --- 3.6 4.1 ---M. Interest for one-half year --- 0.1 0.1 ---N. Amortized accrued liability (yearend)⁶

8.6 15.5 25.5 --– O. Nondeductible contribution from prior years⁷ --- 22.1 15.3 16.2 P. Actuarial value of assets a. VEBA --- 30.7 30.2 39.9 b. 401(h) --- 1.1 1.2 7.6 c. Total (beginning of year) --- 31.9 31.3 47.5 d. Net after nondeductible contributions⁸ --- 9.7 16.1 31.3 e. Interest to yearend --- 0.5 0.6 1.1 f. Total (yearend)⁹

--- 10.2 16.7 32.4 Q. Actual contribution 30.7 2.2 14.0 12.2 R. Deductible contribution¹⁰ 8.6 9.0 13.0 9.3 S. Nondeductible contribution carryforward¹¹ 22.1 15.3 16.2 19.2 1991 1992 1993 1994 A. Investment return 6.6% 6.0% 5.7% 4.9% B. Present value accrued benefits a. Active $11.2 $30.5 $38.4 $61.0 b. Retired 23.8 33.0 38.4 42.6 c. Total 35.0 63.5 76.8 103.6 C. Accrued liability a. Active 9.4 22.7 27.3 43.4 b. Retired 23.8 33.0 38.4 42.6 c. Total 33.1 55.2 64.1 84.7 D. Normal cost 0.2 1.0 1.5 2.4 E. Average present value of future service 4.62 6.26 6.46 6.68 F. Amortized accrued liability from prior years¹ --- 7.9 13.7 20.1 G. Remaining unamortized accrued liability² 33.1 47.3 50.4 64.6 H. Amortization of accrued liability³ 7.2 7.6 7.8 9.7 I. Account limit (beginning of year)⁴

7.4 16.4 23.0 32.2 J. Interest to yearend 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.6 K. Account limit (yearend)⁵

7.9 17.4 24.3 33.8 L. Benefits paid less employee contributions --- 3.6 4.1 ---M. Interest for one-half year --- 0.1 0.1 ---N. Amortized accrued liability (yearend)⁶

7.9 13.7 20.1 ---O. Nondeductible contribution from prior years⁷ --- 22.8 17.2 21.8 P. Actuarial value of assets a. VEBA --- 30.7 30.2 39.9 b. 401(h) --- 1.1 1.2 7.6 c. Total (beginning of year) --- 31.9 31.3 47.5 d. Net after nondeductible contributions⁸ --- 9.1 14.2 25.8 e. Interest to yearend --- 0.5 0.8 1.3 f. Total (yearend)⁹

--- 9.6 15.0 27.0 Q. Actual contribution 30.7 2.2 14.0 12.2 R. Deductible contribution¹⁰ 7.9 7.8 9.4 6.7 S. Nondeductible contribution carryforward¹¹ 22.8 17.2 21.8 27.3 pension plans, (5) the law in effect before the enactment of section 419, and (6) principles of actuarial practice. Respondent contends that the cost of the postretirement benefit must be spread over the remaini ng working lives of the covered employees.

Respondent further contends that, since retirees have no remaining working lives, the cost must spread over the remaining working lives of the active employees. Respondent concludes, therefore, that the aggregate cost method is the proper method for computing the account limit for the reserve under section 419A(c)(2). Respondent asserts in the alternative that, if the entry age normal cost method is a proper method, then the accrued liability must be amortized over the remaining lives of the active employees. 4. Statutory Construction “Our first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particula r dispute in the case.” R obinson v. Shell Oil Co.

, 519 U.S. 337, 3 40 (1997). We look to the legislative history primarily to learn the purpose of the statute and to resolve any ambigui ty in the words contained in the text. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.

, 511 U.S. 244 (1994); Commissioner v.

Soliman

, 506 U.S. 168, 174 (1993); Consumer Prod. Safety Commn. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.

, 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980); United States v. Am.

Trucking Associations, Inc.

, 310 U.S. 534, 543-544 (1940); Allen v.

Commissioner

, 118 T.C. 1, 7 (2002); V enture Funding, Ltd. v.

Commissioner

, 110 T.C. 236, 241-242 (1998), affd. without published opinion 198 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 1999); Trans City Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner , 106 T.C. 274, 299 (1996). Where Congress has expressed its will in reasonably plain terms, those terms must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive. N egonsott v. Samuels , 507 U.S. 99, 104 (1993).

The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole. E state of Cowa rt v. Nicklos Drilling Co.

, 505 U.S. 469 (1992); M cCarthy v. Bronson , 50 0 U.S. 136, 139 (1991). In analyzing the plain meaning of section 419A(c)(2), we examine the section as a whole, with all of its subsections in mind. See Hellmich v. Hellman , 276 U.S. 233, 237 (1928); H uffman v.

Commissioner

, 978 F.2d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir. 1992), affg. in part, revg. and remanding in part T.C. Memo. 1991-144.

5. The Statute

We begin with the specific language of section 419 A(c)(2), which provides:

The account limit for any taxable year may include a reserve funded over the working lives of the co vered employees and actuarially determined on a le vel basis (using assumptions that are reasonable in the aggregate) as necessary for–-(A) post-retirement medical benefits to be provided to covered employees (determined on the basis of current medical costs), or (B) post-retirement life insurance benefits to be provided to covered employees.

We first addressed the requirements of section 419A(c)(2) in

Gen. Signal Corp. v. Commissioner

, 103 T.C. 216, 239 (1994), affd.

142 F.3d 546 (2d Cir. 199 8). In that case, we held that section 4 19A(c)(2) requires an accumulation of assets equal to the deduction taken, and that those assets must be used to pay welfare benefit expenses of ret ired employees. See also S quare D Co. v. Com missioner , 109 T.C. 200 (1997); P arker-Hannifin Corp. v.

Commissioner

, T.C. Memo. 1996-337, affd. in part, revd. in part and remanded 139 F.3d 1090 (6th Cir. 1998). In G en. Signal Corp. , Square D Co.

, and Parker-Hannifin Corp.

, we found that no reserves had been created, obviating the need to c onsider whether the contributions were excessive from an actuarial standpoint. In the case at hand, respondent agrees that a reserve was created; i.e., assets in the amount of the deduction taken were accumulated to be used to pay medical expenses of retired employees.

a. Reserve Petitioners assert that the term “reserve” in section 419A(c)(2) refe rs to the employer’s accrued liability to provide the postretirement benefits. Petitioners conclude, therefore, that the method used in computing the reserve must compute the accrued liability.

Respondent asserts that section 419A(c)(2) does not define the account limit but rather describes contributions to a reserve (equal to the normal cost computed under the aggregate cost method) which may be included as a component of the account limit, together with the amounts set aside for incurred but unpaid claims. Respondent concludes, therefore, that section 419A(c)(2) does not require the computation of the accrued liability.

A comparison of the language in section 419A(c)(1) with that in section 419A(c)(2) belies respondent’s position. Section 419A(c)(1) provides that the account limit “for any taxable year is the amount reasonably and actuarially necessary to fund ” (emphasis supplied) incurred but unpaid claims and administrative costs with respect to such claims. By contrast, section 419A(c)(2) provides that the account limit “for any taxable year may include a reserve”.

Congress could have used iden tical language in both provisions; the fact that Congress chose not to do so must be given heed. Cf. Keene Corp. v. United States , 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993)

(“Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another * * *, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” (Internal quotation ma rks and citation omitted.)); United States v. $359,500 in U.S. Currency , 828 F.2d 930, 933 (2d Cir. 1987) (“‘contrasting language in similar statutes may show that the legislature intended different standards of compliance’” (quoting 2A Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction, sec. 57.06, at 654 (Sands 4th ed. 1984))). Thus, it is the reserve, not merely a contribution equal to the normal cost for the year, that must be computed in determining the account limit. Respondent asserts that courts have held in prior cases, such as Gen. Signal Corp. v. Commissioner , supra , Square D Co. v.

Commissioner

, supra , and Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Commissioner , supra , that “reserve” as used in section 419A(c)(2) does not mean a measure of liability. At issue in those cases, however, was whether section 419A(c)(2) required the actual funding of a reserve. The taxpayers in those cases argued that term “reserve” was an actuarial term of art meaning “a quantity of liability” that did not require actual funding. We held that a mere quantity of liability does not constitute a “reserve funded over the working lives of the covered employees”; i.e., we held that section 419A(c)(2) requires the actual funding of the reserve. When Congress uses a term of art that has an established meaning, a strong presumption arises that Congress intends to incorporate that meaning. M orissette v. United States , 342 U.S.

246, 263 (1952). Congress’s choice of the word “reserve” (rather than “account” or “fund”, for example) connotes a measure of liability. W. Natl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner , 102 T.C. 338, 373 (1994) (“reserves * * * are estimates of liabilities: ‘“best estimates” of future settlement costs’” (quoting Salzmann, Estimated Liabilities For Loss es & Loss Adjustment Expenses 155 (1984))), affd. 65 F.3d 90 (8th Cir. 1995); see also Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. McCoach , 224 F. 657, 659 (3d Cir. 1915) (defining “reserve funds” as “funds as must be reserved to meet liabilities”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1309 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “reserve” to mean “Something retained or stored for future use; esp., a fund of money set aside by a bank or an insuran ce company to cover future liabilities.”).

Section 419A(c)(2) includes in the account limit a reserve funded for the payment of postretirement medical (or life insurance) benefits. The payment of those benefits is a liability of the employer, and “reserve” as used in section 419A(c)(2) connotes a measure of that liability; it refers to the accumulation of assets in an amount necessary to satisf y the employer’s liability to pay the covered employees’ postretirement medical (or life insurance) benefits when those benefits become due. b. Reserve Funded Over the Working Lives of the Covered Employees and Actuarially Determined on a Level Basis Section 419A(c)(2) limits the reserve that may be included in the accoun t limit to “a reserve funded over the lives of the covered employees and actuarially determined on a level basis”. Respondent asserts t hat Norwest’s contribution in 1991 was excessive because it created a reserve that was not “funded over the working lives of the covered employees and actuarially determined on a level basis”. Respondent maintains that the language of section 419A(c)(2) is, in essence, a one-clause definition of th e aggregate cost method. Respondent posits that section 41 9A requires that (1) a reserve for postretirement benefits must be “funded”; i.e., contributions must be made for the purpose of providing postretirement medical benefits, and (2) the funding must be done on a “level” basis over the working lives of the employees. Respondent contends that the funding cannot begin before the reserve is created and, therefore, the funding must be determined on a level basis over the remaining working lives of the covered employee s. Respondent concludes that, since retired employees have no remaining working lives, the funding must be determined on a level basis over the remaining working lives of the active employees. Disagreeing with respondent, petitioners assert that the term “funded” means “calculated”, not “contributed”, and that the reserve (accrued liability) is calculated over the working lives of the covered employe es. Thus, petitioners conclude that the reserve included in the account limit is an actuarially determined accrued liability (i.e., a “reserve”) that is calculated (i.e., “funded”) over the working lives of the covered employees. (i) Reserve Funded Over the Work ing Lives of the Covered Employees We do not agree with petitioners that funded means calculated. We have previously he ld that the “funded” reserve in section 419A(c)(2) refers to an accumulation of assets and the funding of benefits. N atl. Presto Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner , 104 T.C. 559, 574 (1995). A “reserve funded over the working lives of the covered employees” “clearly evokes the gra dual accumulation of funds measured with an eye toward complete funding at the time of retirement”. G en. Signal Corp. v. Commissioner , 142 F.3d at 549 (citing Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Commissioner , 139 F.3d 1090, 1094 (6th Cir. 1998)). We agree with respondent that the funding of the reserve cannot begin until the reserve is created. However, we do not agree with respondent that the reserve must be funded over the aggregate remaining working lives of the active employees. Respondent asserts that once the reserve is created it may be funded ove r the aggregate working lives of the covered employees and that the end of the working lives of the cov ered employees occurs when the last covered employee is no longer employed by the employer, because the employment of all covered employees has terminated. Respondent acknowledges that, under that reading, the reserve will not be fully funded upon retirement with respect to any individual employee (except the last employee). The position taken by respondent in this case is contrary to the position successfully urged by the Commissioner in Gen. Signal Corp. In Gen. Signal Corp. v. Commissioner , 142 F.3d at 549, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the Commissioner’s interpretation that the phrase “funded over the workin g lives” means that “the amount that is supposed to be added to the reserve each year would, assuming the reserve remain ed intact, result in the medical benefit or life insurance (including death benefit) payable to a retired employee during retirement is fully funded upon retir ement. These amounts may be accumulated no more rapid ly than on a level basis over the working life of the employee, with the employer of each employee. * * * The conferees intend that the Treasury Department prescribe rules requiring that the funding of retiree be nefits be based on reasonable and consistently applied actuarial cost methods, which take into account expe rience gains and losses, changes in assumptions, and o ther similar items, and be no more rapid than on a l evel basis over the remaining working lifetimes of the current participants. * * * [H. Conf. Rept. 98-861, at 1157 (1984), 1984-3 C.B. (V ol. 2) 1, 411.]

T he legislative history makes clear that the funding of the reserve can be completed no more rapidly than over the working life of the employee. Therefore, we conclude that fully funding the reserve at or after retirement is permissible because, in that case, the assets are accumulated less rapidly than over the working life of the employee.

To conclude this aspect of our deliberation, we hold that for purposes of section 419A(c)(2), the phrase “reserve funded over the working lives of the covered employees” means that assets necessary to satisfy the employer’s liability may be accumulated no more rapidly than over the working lives of the covered employees, such that the reserve with respect to an employee can be fully funded no earlier than upon retirement of the employee.

(ii) Reserve Actuarially Determined on a Level Basis We now turn our attention to the requirement that the reserve under section 4 19A(c)(2) be “actuarially determined on a level basis” and the calculation of the reserve. We have held that the term “reserve” in section 419A(c)(2) refers to assets in an amount necessary to satisfy the employer’s liability to pay the covered employees’ postretirement medical benefits when the benefits become due.

Petitioners assert that “level”, as an actuaria l concept, refers to normal cost and that, to an actuary, “level” means that the normal costs are level. Normal cost is that portion of the present value of the benefit that is assigned to the current or a future year. In other words, the value of the benefit assigned to the current year is the same as the amount assign ed to each subsequent year until the employee’s retirement date. Petitioners further assert that the actuarial concept of level is unrelated to the employer’s actual contributions to a plan and that actu arial methods determine amounts that can be contributed but do not mandate funding.

Petitioners acknowledge that both the aggregate and entry age normal cost methods produce level n ormal costs. Petitioners assert, however, that the aggregate cost method is not appropriate because it does not directly calculate the accrued liability independently of the assets.

Respondent asserts that a direct c alculation of the accrued liability independent of the assets is not necessary. Respondent contends that the actuary must compute on a level basis a reserve funded over the working lives of the covered employees. Further, respondent posits that since the funding does not begin before the reserve is created, the reserve must be computed by allocating the cost in a level amount over the remaining lives of the employees. Respondent c ontends that (1) the actuarial methodology used must determine contributions at a “rate” that would be level if actuarial assumptions were exactly realized, (2) the funds may only accumulate gradually, and (3) in order to accomplish the gradual funding, the actuarial method must provide for the r atable a ccumulation of funds over the r emaining working lives of the covered employees. Respondent asserts that the following excerpt from the legislative history supports his position: “The conferees intend * * * that the funding of retiree benefits * * * be no more rapid than on a level basis over the remaining working lifetimes of the current participants”. H. Conf. Rept. 98-861, supra at 1157, 1984-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 411. Respondent contends that once an employer elects to fund a reserve for postretirement benefits under section 419A(c)(2), it must then select an act uarial cost method that satisfies this stat utory requirement. Respondent concludes that the aggregate cost method properly allocates the costs in a level amount over the remaining lives of the covered employees. In liability may be accumulated no more rapidly than on a level basis over the working lives of the covered employees, such that the reserve with respect to an employee can be fully funded no earlier than upon retirement of the employee. We conclude that the maximum amount of the liability that may be satisfied by the reserve is the a mount at the time with respect to which the reserve is computed that, together with future normal co sts and interest, will be sufficient upon retirement of each employee to pay future medical claims of the e mployee when they become due. See, e.g., U nited States v. Atlas Life Ins. Co.

, 381 U.S. 233, 236 n.3 (1965);

Travelers Ins. Co. v. United States

, 303 F.3d 1373, 1380-1381 (Fed.

Cir. 2002); Natl. States Ins. Co. v. Commissioner

, 758 F.2d 1277, 1278 (8th Cir. 1985) (a reserve is computed by calculating the excess of the present value of future benefits payable over the present value of future net premiums receivable), affg. 81 T.C. 325 (1983). That amount must be actuarially determined on a level basis.

The actuarial present value of the projected benefit of each covered employee should be allocated on a level basis to each year commencing with the year in which the allocation is first recognized and ending with the year the employee is expected to retire. The funding of “a reserve funded over the working lives of the covered employees” cannot begin until the reserve is created. Thus, the allocation is first recognized on the later of the date when the reserve is created and the date the empl oyee becomes a covered employee. Essentially, this is the individual level premium cost method with the date of the creation of the reserve substituted for the date the plan is instituted. When the year in which the allocation is first recognized is after the employee has retired, the re are no future years to which the benefits may be allocated. Since there are no future years to which the benefits may be allocated, there are no future normal costs, and the entire present value of the projected benefit is properly allocated to the first year. This is the method that Mercer used in computing Norwest’s contribution for 1991, the year the reserve was created. The individual level premium cost method comports wi th our holding that the amount of the liability that may be satisfied by the reserve is the amount at the time with respect to which the reserve is computed t hat, together with future normal costs and interest, will be sufficient upon retirement of an employee to pay future medical claims of the employee when they become due. See, e.g., United States v. Atlas Life Ins. Co.

, supra ; Travelers Ins.

Co. v. United States

, supra ; Best Life Assur. Co. v. Commissioner , 281 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 2002), affg. T.C. Memo. 2000-134; Natl. States Ins. Co. v. Commissioner , supra ; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.

Commissioner

, 96 T.C. 61, 110 (1991), revd. on other grounds 972 F.2d 858 (7th Cir. 1992).

64.0 Combined tax rate (100% - 64%) 36²⁴ The combined tax rate for 1993-94 is computed as follows: Starting point 100.0 % Minn. State tax at 9.8% (100 x 9.8%) - 9.8 90.2 Federal tax at 31.9% (90.2 x 31.9%) -28.8 61.4 Combined tax rate (100% - 61.4%) 38.6 1992-94. In our opinion, Mr. Daskais’s after-tax rates are too high because they do not take into account the Minnesota State tax on unrelated business income. Minnesota taxes the unrelated income of an exempt organization at the corporate rate of 9.8 percent. Minn. Stat. Ann. secs. 290.05, subd. 3, and 290.06, subd. 1 (West 1999 & Supp. 2003). Since State taxes paid are deducted for purposes of Federal tax, the combined tax rate would be 36 percent²³ for 1991-92 and 38.6 percent²⁴ for 1993-94. Applying the combined tax rates to the pretax investment rates Mr. Daskais considers reasonable results in the following after-tax investment rates (rounded to nearest tenth of a percent):

1991 1992 1993 1994 Pretax rate 9.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% After-tax rate 5.8 5.1 4.9 4.3 The difference of 0.3 percent between the 5.8-percent aftertax rate computed for 1991 and the 5.5-percent after-ta x rate petitioners used in 1991 is relatively minimal and does not establish that the 5.5-percent rate was unreasonable. Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service publishes a permissible range of interest rates used to calculate the current liability for purposes of the full-funding limitation for pensions under section 412(c)(7). See Notice 88-73 , 1988-2 C.B. 383. Although we are mindful that Notice 88-73, supra , provides that no inference should be drawn from the notice as to any issue not specifically addressed therein, in the absence of regulations or other guidance to the contrary, in our o pinion rates that fall within the permissible range of rates for purposes of the full-funding limitations on pensions are reasonable for purposes of computing the reserve under section 419A(c)(2).

The published range for a January 1991 valuation date is 7.779.49 percent. Notice 91-5, 1991-1 C.B. 315. The income of a pension trust is not taxable, and the interest rates provided for purp oses of the full-funding limitation represent pretax rates. Application of a 36-percent combined tax rate to 7.8 percent (the lowest investment rate (rounded) in the permissible range for purposes of section 412(c)(7)) gives an after-tax investment rate of 5.0 percent, which we believe supports the reasonableness of the 5.5-percent after-tax rate petitioners used for 1991.

In computing Norwest’s contribution for 1991, Mercer applied a reasonable inv estment rate and used the appropriate individual level premium cost method. We conclude, therefore, that Norwest’s contribution to fund the reserve under section 419A(c)(2) for 1991 did not exceed the account limit.

Further, for years 1992-94, even using the higher after-tax investment rates Mr. Daskais proposed of 6.0 percent for 1992, 5.7 percent for 1993, and 4.9 percent for 1994, it is clear that Norw est’s contributions to fund the reserve do not exceed the account limit when the reserve is computed by applying the individual level premium cost method.

We conclude that Norwest’s contributions to the postretirement benefit trust to fund a reserve for postretirement medical benefits for 1991 -94 did not exceed the account limit for a reserve under section 419A(c)(2). We hold, therefore, that in computing petitioners’ consolidated income tax for 1991-94, petitioners are entitled to deductions for postretirement medical benefit contributions of $30,689,717 in 1991 , $2,170,000 in 1992, $13,791,600 in 1993, and $12,247,933 in 1994.

To reflect the foregoing, and because othe r issues in these cases remain for resolution, An appropriate order will be issued .