Opinion letters database

Following a restructuring of three pension plans maintained by one company, each restructured plan remains covered, each plan qualifies as a successor plan, and the plan sponsor would be liable to PBGC for any funding deficiency at termination.

Plan termination date was acceptable because it terminated in accordance with the terms of the Plan, participants had reasonable notice that Plan was terminating, and participants had no justifiable expectation of additional accrual of benefits under the Plan after the proposed termination date.

§ 4048 and terminated plan and notice of lien not being filed.

Modified plan document provision that permits reversion of excess assets to employer is invalid because modification was made without consent of required party and thus, excess assets must be distributed to participants instead. Also, Plan is a covered Plan, as it satisfies all requirements for qualification imposed by § 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and the Plan, at all times, has provided for employer contributions notwithstanding any failure to make such contributions.

This letter determined that a tribal plan is a governmental plan and therefore excluded from Title IV coverage.

A plan maintained by a municipal corporation with a board appointed by elected officials is within the meaning of a governmental plan and is therefore excluded from Title IV coverage.

Discussion of changes brought forth by MPPAA and how under MPPAA, a cessation of the obligation of all employers to contribute under a plan constitutes a withdrawal of all employers from the plan. Noted that if the union and employers in collective bargaining do not agree to continue their contribution obligation to the Plan, the employers will incur withdrawal liability to the Plan.

PBGC determined that trusteeship of the plan was unnecessary because the plan’s assets appear sufficient to pay benefits under its existing terms. At the time of termination, PBGC could only guarantee nonforfeitable benefits actually provided by the plan, not additional benefits required by Title I of ERISA, and the plan had not been amended to comply with those minimum standards. Consequently, participants’ benefits are limited to what the plan promised, and PBGC cannot guarantee enhancements under later legislation like MPPAA.

The plan records are maintained in Hong Kong, and all of the participants are nonresident aliens who work outside of the United States. This plan is excluded from Title IV coverage.

PBGC has determined that restoring the plan to its pre-termination status is not appropriate due to the sponsor’s limited ability to maintain the plan and the risk to plan assets. The plan will therefore remain in its terminated, post-termination status under ERISA § 4047.

This letter examines whether a plan will constitute a successor plan for the purposes of Title IV of ERISA.

River pilots are not professional individuals for purposes of the professional service employer exclusion and are therefore covered by Title IV.

Foresters are not professional individuals for purposes of the professional service employer plan exclusion and are therefore covered under Title IV.

Providers of advertising and public relations services are not professional individuals for purposes of the professional service employer plan exclusion and are therefore covered under Title IV.

Real estate brokers are not professional individuals for purposes of the professional service employer plan exclusion and are therefore covered under Title IV.

Artist-designers are not professional individuals for purposes of the professional service employer plan exclusion and are therefore covered under Title IV.

Food brokers are not professional individuals for purposes of the professional service employer plan exclusion and therefore are covered under Title IV.

Opticians are not professional individuals for purposes of professional service employer plan exclusion.

Request for reconsideration of May 11, 1979 letter under § 4063(d)/

Distribution resulting in improperly reduced benefit to all participants of the plan.

Questioned liability to PBGC after a proposed sale of a division, and requested determination of the extent of the liability which the company would incur if it terminates after date of the sale. Company will have no continuing liability after sale of division if plan has sufficient assets to satisfy PBGC guaranteed benefits.

Premium is based on "snapshot approach," meaning the number of plan participants on the last day of prior plan year.

No future liability for plan sponsor after the occurrence of a transaction transferring the plan assets of a subsidiary.

Opinion concerning plan administrator and obligation to submit information that was not submitted. Subpoena issued to plan administrator for failure to provide the information.

This letter discusses the liability with respect to private-sector plans to which employees contribute.