Alfred E. Gallade - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          if its benefits can be assigned or alienated.  Sec. 401(a)(13);             
          29 U.S.C. sec. 1056(d)(1) (1994).                                           
               Section 1.401(a)-13(c)(1), Income Tax Regs., provides:                 
                    (c) Definition of assignment and alienation--(1)                  
               In general.  For purposes of this section, the terms                   
               “assignment” and “alienation” include--                                
                         (i) Any arrangement providing for the                        
               payment to the employer of plan benefits which                         
               otherwise would be due the participant under the plan,                 
                         (ii) Any direct or indirect arrangement                      
               (whether revocable or irrevocable) whereby a party                     
               acquires from a participant or beneficiary a right or                  
               interest enforceable against the plan in, or to, all or                
               any part of a plan benefit payment which is, or may                    
               become, payable to the participant or beneficiary.                     
               Included in the Plan’s terms is a clause that complies with            
          the aforementioned antiassignment requirement.  Specifically,               
          section 16.03 of the Plan contains a nonassignability clause that           
          includes the statement that a participant shall not “have any               
          right to alienate * * * the benefits or payments or proceeds                
          which he may expect to receive under [the] Plan”.                           
               We must decide whether petitioner’s “waiver” constituted an            
          assignment or alienation of his benefits under the Plan in                  
          violation of ERISA section 206(d)(1) and I.R.C. section                     
               In light of GCI’s financial difficulties, petitioner decided           
          that his accrued, fully vested benefit would be put to best use             
          by GCI.  Therefore, he executed a waiver of benefits in favor of            
          GCI.  Petitioner contends that ERISA’s antialienation provisions            

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011