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

1981
AO/ Date/ Reference Recipient Description of Request
02/18/1981
3(2)

Mr. Mark S. Dray
Hunton & Williams
P.O. Box 1535
Richmond, Virginia 23212

Whether certain payments by United Virginia Bankshares Incorporated (the Company) would constitute an employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of section 3(2) of ERISA.

02/09/1981
104
3(1)
403(a)
404(a)(1)
514(a)

Steven L. Ross, Esq.
Robins, Davis & Lyons
33 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Whether the Trust and the Committee may continue to operate in the manner outlined in the letter. As stated in your submission of September 14, 1979, of particular concern in this regard is the requirement in section 403(a) of ERISA that, in general, the assets of an employee benefit plan

02/09/1981

Mr. Lawrence J. Hass
Groom & Nordberg
Suite 450
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Whether the  sale of the King of Prussia Park Trust (King of Prussia) by Citibank, as trustee for employee benefit plans, to RREEF USA FUND-I (RREEF) did not constitute a prohibited transaction under sections 406 and 407 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 4975(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC).

02/05/1981

Ms. Jane B. Stranch
Branstetter, Moody & Kilgore
200 Church Street
Fourth Floor
Nashville, Tennessee 37201

Whether the Remembrance Fund of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 572 (the Remembrance Fund) is exempted from the reporting and disclosure provisions of ERISA.

02/02/1981

Mr. G. Boone Smith, III
Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton
500 First National Bank Building
Macon, Georgia 31298

Whether the Plan is neither an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA section 3(1) nor an employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA section 3(2).

01/29/1981
103(a)

Mr. J. Robert Ash
Employers Dental Services, Inc.
4431 East Broadway
Tucson, Arizona 85711

Whether an "Employer Group Agreement" between Employer Dental Services, Inc. (EDS) and an employer sponsoring a prepaid dental plan, under which EDS agrees to provide specified dental benefits to employees and their eligible dependents is an insurance contract or policy issued by an insurance company or similar organization which is qualified to do business in a state for purposes of 29 C.F.R. §2520.104-20(b)(ii).

01/23/1981
3(1)
3(2)

Mr. J. Michael Wylie
Moore & Peterson
2400 One Dallas Centre
Dallas, Texas 75201

Whether the Trust, created by employees of Natural Resource Management Corporation (NRMC) and its subsidiaries for the purpose of acquiring a general partnership interest in NRM 81-1, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning of section 3(2) of ERISA, or an "employee welfare benefit plan" within the meaning of section 3(1) of ERISA.

01/23/1981

Mr. Stanley D. Heisler
Heisler, Van Valkenburgh & Coats
214 East Fifth Street
The Dalles, Oregon 97058

Whether the Plan is exempt from the provisions of ERISA by virtue of its being a "governmental plan" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §1002 (ERISA section 3(32)).

01/23/1981

Mr. Courts Oulahan
702 Longfellow Building
1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Whether the plan is a governmental plan within the meaning of ERISA section 3(32) and, thus, is excluded from ERISA title I coverage by ERISA section 4(b)(1).

01/16/1981
404(a)(1)

Mr. S. E. Clark
Senior Vice President and Senior Trust Officer
City National Bank
Wilshire Boulevard at Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210

Whether the diversification requirement of section 404(a)(1)(C) of ERISA is met in the case of a plan which has invested in the limited partnership, the investments of the limited partnership are to be considered investments of the plan.  Whether the Trustee would be considered prudent under section 404 of ERISA for making such investments and be obligated to monitor these investments.