Qualifying Employer Real Property Questions

Under the prohibited transaction rules, an employer can make an in-kind contribution of real property to a DB plan if (among other things) the real property constitutes "Qualifying Employer Real Property."  I have a few questions regarding what constitutes QERP.

1. One requirement for property to be QERP is that it must be suitable for more than one use.  This is a "facts and circumstances" determination, but I haven't seen any real guidance as to what this means.  Does anyone have anything on that?
2. I have read through all the PTEs I can find, but I can't find a case of an employer donating foreign property to a DB plan.  Is there any reason foreign property shouldn't constitute QERP?

Thanks in advance for any help!

While I say nothing about what might or might not be qualifying employer real property, consider what arrangements your client would make to ensure that "the indicia of ownership of" the real property would be within "the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States."  ERISA 404(b).  While one might use a U.S. bank as the holder, as is commonly done with securities, think through whether a similar arrangement is effective for real property.

Is there a rule in the regs or some other guidance saying that holding the deed in the USA does not satisfy the indicia of ownership requirement?

55 minutes ago, jpod said:

Is there a rule in the regs or some other guidance saying that holding the deed in the USA does not satisfy the indicia of ownership requirement?

Does holding a deed in the USA for a piece of foreign property subject that piece of property to the jurisdiction of US courts?  That, apparently, is crucial for the property to be considered qualifying.  If a US court (as a result of participant litigation with respect to the plan) orders that the property be sold and the proceeds divided among some or all of the plan participants, would that have to be done, or would the property really be outside of US jurisdiction for that purpose?

Considering that this is a DB plan thread - it's not just a matter of prohibited transaction rules - would the plan's enrolled actuary be compelled to recognize the piece of foreign property as a plan contribution, possibly for the purpose of meeting the plan's minimum funding requirements?  What about recognizing its value for purposes of determining the plan's AFTAP?  And at what value?

Look at the following. Don't forget about the geographically dispersed multiple parcels requirement. And the property must be leased back to the employer or an affiliate (so contributing the owner's villa on the French Riviera probably doesn't work). Finally, any such contribution of property must be above and beyond the ERISA MRC, which must be made in cash.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-072-011-cont01.html