Advisory Opinions

Whether the Lutheran Home Care Services, Inc. Group Health Plan and the Lutheran Home Care Services, Inc. Tax- Sheltered Annuity Retirement Plan are “church plans” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33) and therefore exempt from coverage under Title I of ERISA by section 4(b)(2).

Whether the Christian Brothers Employee Retirement Plan is a “church plan” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33).

Whether the ERISA section 407(d)(5) definition of "qualifying employer security" applies for purposes of the prohibited transaction exemption in Internal Revenue Code section 4975(d)(13).

Whether the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh is a governmental entity described in ERISA section 3(32) such that any employee benefit plans established or maintained by the Bank for its employees would be excluded from coverage under ERISA section 4(b)(1).

Whether the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, California Health & Safety Code Section 1340 et seq., would be preempted by ERISA section 514(a) if applied to prohibit a welfare benefit plan from providing participants with incentives to influence their choices among alternative benefits under the plan.

Request for reconsideration or clarification of AO 95-06A, which held that the group health benefits program offered by Mid-Continent Medical Benefits Trust is a “multiple employer welfare arrangement” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(40), and not an employee benefit plan, and that ERISA section 514(a) would not preempt state regulation of the Trust, Profession Administration Group, or "the pooled custodial account" maintained by these entities.

Whether Connecticut General Statutes section 38a-537 is preempted by ERISA section 514(a) or whether section 38a-537 is saved from preemption under ERISA section 514(b) as a law regulating insurance.

Whether Minnesota Statutes section 61A.092 is preempted by ERISA section 514(a) or whether section 61A.092 is saved from preemption under ERISA section 514(b) as a law regulating insurance.

Whether, in a participant-directed eligible individual account plan designed to satisfy the requirements of ERISA section 404(c), the failure of trustees to follow the last affirmative investment directions of participants who can no longer be located would cause the plan to lose its status as a "section 404(c) plan."

Whether section 5(g) of Puerto Rico Act No. 17 of April 17, 1931, as amended, is preempted by ERISA section 514(a) as it may be applied to prohibit a pension plan from requiring repayment of plan loans through payroll deductions.