- 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,
and
(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
401(a)(13).
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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011