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

**2001**
AO/ Date/ Reference	Recipient	Description of Request
2001-03A 02/15/2001 3(2)	Theodore R. Groom Groom Law Group 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20006-5893	Whether certain individual retirement annuities and tax deferred annuities that are otherwise exempt from coverage under Title I of ERISA by virtue of DOL regulations at 29 CFR 2510.3-2(d) and (f) would remain exempt if the employer as the contract holder (1) votes on the proposed plan of demutualization and (2) selects an allocation method for distributing the demutualization proceeds among the employees covered under the group contract. See also Information Letter to Theodore R. Groom dated 02/15/01.
2001-02A 02/15/2001 3(21)	Theodore R. Groom Groom Law Group 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20006-5893	Application of the definition of a "fiduciary" in certain circumstances relating to the allocation of demutualization proceeds. See also Information Letter to Theodore R. Groom dated 02/15/01.
2001-01A 01/18/2001 403 404	Mr. Carl J. Stoney, Jr. Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111-4106	The application of Title I of ERISA to the payment by plans of expenses relating to tax-qualification. See hypothetical examples.

**2000**
AO/ Date/ Reference	Recipient	Description of Request
2000-15A 11/15/2000 PTE 84-24	Stephen M. Saxon, Esquire Groom Law Group 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006-5893	Concerning the application of PTE 84-24 to transactions involving certain individual retirement annuities offered by TIAA-CREF.
2000-14A 10/15/2000 3(1)	Roderick A. DeArment Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW P.O. Box 7566 Washington, DC 20044-7566	Regarding the applicability of Title I of the ERISA to the UTU’s Job Benefit Fund/Income Security Program, specifically, that the JBF/ISP is not an "employee welfare benefit plan" within the meaning of section 3(1) of Title I of ERISA.
2000-13A 10/24/2000 401(c )	Mr. David McDaniel Ernst & Young 600 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2215	Regarding the applicability of Title I of ERISA. Specifically, whether the Authority's East Alabama Medical Center Financial Security Plan and its East Alabama Medical Center TSA Thrift Plan are governmental plans, and, therefore excluded by §4(b)(1) from coverage under Title I.
2000-12A 10/04/2000 401(c )	Stephen M. Saxon, Esq. Jon W. Breyfogle, Esq. Groom Law Group, Chartered 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006-5893	Regarding the definition of a "Transition Policy" contained in the Department of Labor regulation at 29 C.F.R. 2550.401c-1(h)(6).
2000-11A 09/22/2000 3(32)	Mr. Vincenzo Oliveto 68 Kenwood Drive Bohemia, New York 11716-1316	Concerning the status of the Firefighters’ Variable Supplements Fund under Title I of ERISA. Specifically, that the VS Fund is a "governmental plan" within the meaning of section 3(32) of ERISA, and, therefore, is excluded from ERISA Title I coverage pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of ERISA.
2000-10A 07/27/2000 4975 ( c)(1)	Hugh Janow Janow & Meyer, LLC One Blue Hill Plaza P.O. Box 1606 Suite 1006 Pearl River, New York 10965-8606	Whether allowing the owner of an IRA to direct the IRA to invest in a limited partnership, in which relatives and the IRA owner in his individual capacity are partners, will violate section 4975 of the Code.
2000-09A 07/12/2000 206(d)(3)	Gail Inman-Campbell Walker, Campbell & Campbell Suite 201 Security Plaza P.O. Box 1940 Harrison, Arkansas 72602-1940	This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion under section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. You raise questions regarding the proper treatment of a domestic relations order that assigns to an alternate payee a “company-paid survivor benefit.”