American Bar Association: Section of Taxation

Section of Taxation
Committee Comments: Endnotes

Comments Concerning Nondiscrimination Standards for Governmental Plans

To return to the Comments text, close this window.

Endnotes

1 Pub. L. 105-34.

2 Unless otherwise noted, all references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

3 ERISA §3(32), 29 U.S.C. 1002(32).

4 ERISA §4021(b)(2), 29 U.S.C. 1321(b)(2).

5 ERISA Op. Ltr. 81-14A. See also Rose v. Long Island Railroad Pension Plan, 828 F.2d 910, (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 1112 (1988).

6 PBGC Opinion Letter 75-44. The PBGC has similarly ruled that the exemption for plans established and maintained by substantial owners should be construed so that plans currently maintained by substantial owners are exempt from Title IV of ERISA, regardless of the status of the plan upon establishment. See PBGC Opinion Letter 90-6.

7 PLR 7935040.

8 S. Rep. 383, 93 rd Cong. 2nd Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad News 4890, 4965; H.R. Rep. 807, 93 rd Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 4670, 4756-57. See also Rose v. Long Island Railroad Pension Plan, 828 F.2d 910 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 1112, (1988).

9 1A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction 21.14 (5 th ed. 1992).

10 See, for example, United States v. Fisk, 70 U.S. 445 (1865); Bruce v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 837 F.2d 712 (5 th Cir. 1988); United States v. Moore, 613 F.2d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954 (1980); Peacock v. Lubbock Compress Co., 252 F.2d 892 (5 th Cir. 1958); United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942), rev’d on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943); and Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Skipper, 115 F.2d 69 (8 th Cir. 1902).

11 House Rept. 93-807, 1974-3 C.B. 282.

12 §§401(a)(5)(G), 401(a)(26)(H), 401(k)(3)(G), and 403(b)(12)(C).

BACK TO TOP

Advertisement