Advisory Opinions

Requests for interpretations and other rulings under Title 1 of ERISA are handled by the Office of Regulations and Interpretations under the provisions established by ERISA Procedure 76-1.  The office answers inquiries from individuals and organizations in the form of advisory opinions, which apply the law to a specific set of facts, or information letters, which merely call attention to well established principles or interpretations.

Data Dictionary

1982
AO/ Date/ Reference Recipient Description of Request
04/21/1982
104(b)(4)
404(a)(1)(D)

Gerald S. Clay, Esq.
Stanton and Clay
Suite 1655
Pioneer Plaza
900 Fort Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Whether the Trustees of the Glass/Metal Association of Hawaii and Glaziers and Glassworkers Training, Vacation, Health and Welfare, and Pension Funds (the Trustees) are required under ERISA to provide minutes of the Trustees' meetings, the treasurer's reports, audited reports by Certified Public Accountants, and reports submitted to the State and Federal governments to "contributing employers who are not participants or beneficiary parties" in the Funds.

04/15/1982

Mr. C.W. Crumpecker, Jr.
Swanson, Midgley, Gangwere, Clarke & Kitchin
1500 Commerce Bank Building
Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Whether the proposed sale of employer stock between two plans (the Yellow Freight Profit-Sharing Trust and the Yellow Freight System, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Trust) with the same plan sponsor is exempt from the prohibited transaction provisions of section 406 of ERISA and from the taxes imposed by section 4975 of the Code by reason of section 408(e) of ERISA. Whether the method of determining the purchase price of the common stock is permissible under section 408(e) of ERISA.

03/26/1982
407(d)(3)

R. F. Sharpe, Jr., Esq.
R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc.
World Headquarters
Winston-Salem, NC 27102

Whether the R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc. Individual Retirement Account Plan is a "savings plan" and, as amended, is an "eligible individual account plan" under section 407(d)(3) of ERISA.

03/22/1982
3(2)

Ms. Sheila E. Schlitter
Chapman and Cutler
111 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603

Whether an individual retirement account (IRA) payroll deduction program would be treated as an employee pension benefit plan under title I of ERISA solely because of a payment by the employer of an administrative fee to be charged by the IRA sponsor to offset the expenses of payroll deduction which are incurred by the IRA sponsor.

03/10/1982

Ms. Char A. Short
Manager of Client Services
A.S. Hansen, Inc.
Suite 1000, Pennzoil Place
711 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002

Whether Revenue Ruling 81-137 impacts the reporting and disclosure requirements under Part 1 of Title I of ERISA.

03/08/1982
514

Mr. Don D. Carlson
Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay
2300 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Whether the Minnesota State usury laws are preempted under section 514 of title I of ERISA.

03/08/1982
4(b)(3)

Mr. Douglas M. Case
Corporate Counsel
Taco Bell
17381 Red Hill Avenue
Irvine, California 92714

Whether a voluntary unemployment compensation disability plan of Taco Bell and Bell Food Services, Inc., administered according to applicable provisions of the California Unemployment Insurance Code (CUIC) is covered under ERISA.

02/19/1982
104

Ms. Catherine L. Heron
Breed, Abbott & Morgan
1875 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Whether the AFTRA Pension and Welfare Funds may distribute certain plan documents by third-class mail without a guarantee of return and forwarding postage.

02/17/1982
3(2)

Nina G. Gross, Esq.
Government Relations Counsel
American Bankers Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Whether a payroll deduction program for an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) will constitute an employee pension benefit plan for the purposes of title I of ERISA under certain circumstances.

02/05/1982

Mr. Keith B. Betzina
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe
44 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94104

Whether Sutro & Co. Incorporated (Sutro) will be considered to be a "trustee or plan administrator" for purposes of Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 79-1 (PTE 79-1) when it acts as custodian of custodial accounts established under a prototype plan for self-employed persons (the Keogh Plan) or a simplified employee pension (SEP).