- 13 -
control regarding the management or disposition of FUH plan
assets and because his involvement in the daily operations of FUH
was minimal. Petitioner points out that he resigned from the
pension committee shortly after it was formed and argues that the
committee had exclusive authority and control over the FUH plan.
We disagree. Petitioner had discretionary authority and
control over the management of the FUH plan, over the disposition
of FUH plan assets, and in the administration of the FUH plan
when the prohibited transactions occurred; he need not have
exercised that authority to be a fiduciary of the FUH plan. Sec.
4975(e)(3)(A), (C).
During the years at issue, petitioner was at various times
vice president or president of FUH, a member of the executive and
finance committees of FUH, a trustee of the FUH plan, and,
briefly, president of the pension committee of FUH. The pension
committee reported directly to the executive committee when FUH
decided to invest plan assets in the program. He was also a
member of the finance committee when, on July 21, 1982, Walckner
sent a memorandum to members of that committee advising them
that, unless they opposed the program within 10 days, the FUH
plan would go ahead with the investment in the program.
Petitioner thus had a direct role in deciding whether FUH would
adopt the program. He exercised discretionary authority and
control regarding management of the FUH plan or disposition of
its assets. Sec. 4975(e)(3)(A).
Petitioner exercised authority over the FUH plan. As
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011