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

Start Date

Select Reference

**2007**
AO/ Date/ Reference	Recipient	Description of Request
2007-01A 01/22/2007 PTE 84-14	Melanie Franco Nussdorf, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC 20036	Whether transactions between a broker-dealer and a separate account managed by a QPAM under a 401(k) plan fail to satisfy section I(a) of PTE 84-14 where plan participants investing in such account receive investment allocation advice from a subsidiary of the broker-dealer.

**2006**
AO/ Date/ Reference	Recipient	Description of Request
2006-09A 12/19/2006 4975( c)(1)(A) 4975( c)(1)(B)	Edward A. Appelt 24 Winslow Drive Pittsburg, PA 15229	This advisory opinion concludes that a self-directed IRA‘s investment in notes of a corporation, a majority of whose stock is owned by the son-in-law of the IRA owner, would be a prohibited transaction under the Internal Revenue Code.
2006-08A 10/03/2006 404(a)	Donald J. Myers, Esq. Reed Smith LLP 1301 K Street, N.W. Suite 1100-East Tower Washington, D.C. 20005-3373	Whether a fiduciary of a defined benefit plan may, consistent with the requirements of section 404 of ERISA, consider the liability obligations of the plan and the risks associated with such liability obligations in determining a prudent investment strategy for the plan.
2006-07A 08/15/2006 PTE 91-38	Stephen M. Saxon, Esq. Groom Law Group 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-5811	Whether Chevy Chase Trust Company (CCTC) would be considered a bank, and whether certain collective investment funds for which CCTC acts as trustee would be considered to be maintained by a bank for purposes of PTE 91-38.
2006-06A 07/26/2006 PTE 77-3	Mr. F. Jefferson Bragdon Williams Coulson 15th Floor Two Chatham Center Pittsburgh, PA 15219	Whether the prohibition on the payment of sales commissions in PTE 77-3 applies to the payment of 12b-1 Fees by a proprietary mutual fund to an unrelated broker.
2006-05A 07/26/2006 3(32)	Alice League, Esq. General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer Federal Reserve Employee Benefits System 744 Broad Street, Suite 2100 Newark, NJ 07102	Whether certain employee benefit programs of the Federal Reserve System are excluded from the requirements of Title I under section 4(b)(1) of ERISA as "governmental plan[s]" within the meaning of section 3(32) of ERISA.
2006-04A 04/27/2006 403( c) 406(b)	Charles E. Blitman, Esq. Blitman & King LLP Franklin Center Suite 300 443 North Franklin Street Syracuse, New York 13204	Regarding the application of ERISA to trustees' amendment of a plan to permit a retroactive contribution to the plan fund on behalf of an owner of a corporation that contributes to the fund as an employer. Whether such owner who performed work for his own corporation that would otherwise be covered by a collective bargaining agreement if he were not a "supervisor" under federal labor law is an "employee," within the meaning of section 3(6) of ERISA, for purposes of participation under the plan.
2006-03A 02/28/2006 PTE 92-6	Seymour Goldberg, Esq. Goldberg & Goldberg, PC One Huntington Quadrangle, Suite 3S09 Melville, New York 11747	PTE 92-6 covers the sale, by an employee benefit plan, of a second to die life-insurance policy to two participants who are husband and wife and who are the insured under the policy. The letter also clarifies that the conditions of PTE 92-6 remain the same despite the amendments to the Internal Revenue Code regarding the tax treatment of certain life-insurance policies distributed from employee benefit plans.
2006-02A 01/23/2006 403(d)(2) 406(b)(2)	James F. McLeod Lathrop & Gage L.C. 1845 South National P.O. Box 4288 Springfield, MO 65804-4288	Whether the transfer of residual assets from a terminated MEWA that is also a plan to a VEBA that provides health and life insurance benefits to the employees of the entity that sponsored both the MEWA and the VEBA constitutes an improper inurement of plan assets for the benefit of an employer in violation of section 403, or a prohibited transaction under section 406.
2006-01A 01/06/2006 2509-75-2	Debra C. Buchanan, Esq. Guidant Legal Group, PLLC 225 Commerce Street, Suite 450 Tacoma, WA 98402	Whether a lease by a company (LLC) 49% owned by an IRA to a company (S) which is a disqualified person with respect to that IRA is a prohibited transaction where the manager of the LLC is an officer of S. Whether 29 CFR 2509.75-2 makes the transaction an indirect prohibited transaction and whether it makes the transaction a violation of the Internal Revenue Code's exclusive benefit rule.