I'm trying to put together a list of employers who have made in-kind real property contributions to their pension plans.

[ERISA-Bubs]

We have a client who is thinking about contributing real property to it's underfunded pension plan.  We know of a few companies that have done this, such as Anheuser-Busch and Coca Cola, and we're trying to find more examples.  Are you aware of any employers who have done this?  If so, who (extra points if you have a link to an individual prohibited transaction exemption for the company!)?

[jpod]

You may be able to find the PT exemptions for similar transactions by looking through the index of exemptions on the DOL website.  I have heard that staff at EBSA are so bogged down with Fiduciary Rule matters that the expected timeline for securing an exemption is ridiculous.

[Peter Gulia]

Using only the FederalRegister.gov public website (for 1994 and later), restricting the search to notices, and requiring “prohibited transaction” and “real property” to appear in such a source, that search yields 350 documents.  (Going back to September 1974 might increase it some.)

 

For a good search, you’d want a professional librarian using an editorially-enhanced database tool designed for professional researchers.  And a good librarian can help you design search terms and qualifiers that filter out sources that would waste your time and attention while not missing sources that are useful.

 

I suggest Jenkins Law Library https://www.jenkinslaw.org/research/help/pricing-information/research-pricing.

 

[david rigby]

You might also try searching these BenefitsLink Message Boards.  Perhaps search terms such as "real estate" or "real property".

 

[My 2 cents]

Not sure I've actually had to deal with such things.  Would putting $X down as the amount contributed on the Schedule SB make the amount the professional responsibility of the enrolled actuary?  Would the acceptance of such a contribution by the plan administrator (and recognition of a specific value) become a fiduciary act?  Would there be any obligation on the part of either the plan administrator or enrolled actuary to determine whether the investment is suitable for the plan?  And all that is over and above concerns as to whether it is a PT.

[jpod]

There is no "whether" involved here.  It is a per se PT.

[Peter Gulia]

The Labor department's grant of a prohibited-transaction might relieve a fiduciary from one or more of the prohibited-transaction consequences, but does not relieve a fiduciary from any other responsibility, including duties to act prudently and for the exclusive purpose of providing the plan's benefits.

The conditions the Labor department might require could include not only using an independent appraiser or other valuation expert but also engaging an independent fiduciary to oversee at least the conflicted transaction and perhaps later years' valuations.

[CuseFan]

also, i think the in-kind contributions had to be above and beyond the ERISA MRC, which was still required in cash