[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69172-69188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28853]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-157714-06]
RIN 1545-BG43


Determination of Governmental Plan Status

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Treasury Department and IRS anticipate issuing regulations 
under section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to define the 
term ``governmental plan.'' This document describes the rules that the 
Treasury Department and IRS are considering proposing relating to the 
determination of whether a plan is a governmental plan within the 
meaning of section 414(d) and contains an appendix that includes a 
draft notice of proposed rulemaking on which the Treasury Department 
and IRS invite comments from the public. This document applies to 
sponsors of, and participants and beneficiaries in, employee benefit 
plans that are determined to be governmental plans.

DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by February 6, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions relating to the section 414(d) draft 
general regulations to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-157714-06), room 5203, 
Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington 
DC, 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday, 
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-157714-06), 
Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC.
    Alternately, taxpayers may submit comments relating to the section 
414(d) draft general regulations electronically via the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS-REG-157714-06).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the ANPRM, Pamela R. 
Kinard, at (202) 622-6060; concerning submission of comments, Richard 
A. Hurst, at [email protected] or at (202) 622-7180 
(not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This document describes rules that the Treasury Department and IRS 
are considering proposing and contains a draft notice of proposed 
rulemaking (in the Appendix to this ANPRM) under section 414(d) of the 
Internal Revenue Code (Code). Under the draft notice of proposed 
rulemaking (in the Appendix to this ANPRM), the rules would provide 
general guidance relating to the determination of whether a retirement 
plan is a governmental plan within the meaning of section 414(d) 
(section 414(d) draft general regulations). The principles described in 
this ANPRM could also apply for purposes of certain parallel terms in 
sections 403(b) and 457 of the Code.
    Section 414(d) of the Code provides that the term ``governmental 
plan'' generally means a plan established and maintained for its 
employees by the Government of the United States, by the government of 
any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or 
instrumentality of any of the foregoing. See sections 3(32) and 
4021(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
(ERISA) for definitions of the term ``governmental plan,'' which govern 
respectively for purposes of title I and title IV of ERISA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The three definitions of the term ``governmental plan'' are 
essentially the same. The only difference is that, in defining the 
term ``governmental plan,'' section 3(32) of ERISA uses the phrase 
``established or maintained,'' whereas section 414(d) of the Code 
and section 4021(b) of ERISA use the term ``established and 
maintained.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``governmental plan'' also includes any plan to which the 
Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937 (49 Stat. 967, as amended by 50 
Stat. 307) applies and which is financed by contributions

[[Page 69173]]

required under that Act and any plan of an international organization 
which is exempt from taxation by reason of the International 
Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669). See section 414(d)(2) of 
the Code.
    Section 414(d) was amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, 
Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780) (PPA '06) to include certain plans 
of Indian tribal governments and related entities.\2\ Section 906(a)(1) 
of PPA '06 provides that the term ``governmental plan'' includes a plan 
which is established and maintained by an Indian tribal government (as 
defined in section 7701(a)(40)), a subdivision of an Indian tribal 
government (determined in accordance with section 7871(d)), or an 
agency or instrumentality of either (ITG), and all the participants of 
which are employees of such entity substantially all of whose services 
as such an employee are in the performance of essential governmental 
functions but not in the performance of commercial activities (whether 
or not an essential governmental function).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 906(a) of PPA '06 made similar amendments to 
sections 3(32) and 4021(b)(2) of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither section 414(d) of the Code, section 3(32) of ERISA, nor 
section 4021(b)(2) of ERISA define key terms relating to governmental 
plans, including the terms ``established and maintained,'' ``political 
subdivision,'' ``agency,'' and ``instrumentality.'' Currently, there 
are no regulations interpreting section 414(d). Revenue Ruling 89-49 
(1989-1 CB 117), see Sec.  601.601(d)(2), sets forth a facts and 
circumstances analysis for determining whether a retirement plan is a 
governmental plan within the meaning of section 414(d).\3\ This 
analysis is used by the IRS in issuing letter rulings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See also Rev. Rul. 57-128 (1957-1 CB 311), see Sec.  
601.601(d)(2), which provides guidance on determining when an entity 
is a governmental instrumentality for purposes of the exemption from 
employment taxes under section 3121(b)(7) and 3306(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Governmental plans are subject to different rules than retirement 
plans of nongovernmental employers. Governmental plans are excluded 
from the provisions of titles I and IV of ERISA. In addition, 
governmental plans receive special treatment under the Code. These 
plans are exempt from certain qualification requirements and they are 
deemed to satisfy certain other qualification requirements under 
certain conditions. As a result, the principal qualification 
requirements for a tax-qualified governmental plan \4\ are that the 
plan--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A special rule applies to contributory plans of certain 
governmental entities. Section 414(h)(2) provides that, for a 
qualified plan established by a State government or political 
subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of the 
foregoing, where the contributions of the governmental employer are 
designated as employee contributions under section 414(h)(1) but the 
governmental employer picks up the contributions, the contributions 
picked up will be treated as employer contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Be established and maintained by the employer for the 
exclusive benefit of the employer's employees or their beneficiaries;
     Provide definitely determinable benefits;
     Be operated pursuant to its terms;
     Satisfy the direct rollover rules of section 401(a)(31);
     Satisfy the section 401(a)(17) limitation on compensation;
     Comply with the statutory minimum required distribution 
rules under section 401(a)(9);
     Satisfy the pre-ERISA vesting requirements under section 
411(e)(2); \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 411(e)(2) states that a plan described in section 
411(e)(1) is treated as meeting the requirements of section 411 if 
the plan meets the vesting requirements resulting from the 
application of section 401(a)(4) and (a)(7) as in effect on 
September 1, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Satisfy the section 415 limitations on benefits, as 
applicable to governmental plans; and
     Satisfy the prohibited transaction rules in section 503.
    State and local governments, political subdivisions thereof, and 
agencies or instrumentalities thereof are generally not permitted to 
offer cash or deferred arrangements under section 401(k). However, an 
ITG is permitted to offer a cash or deferred arrangement under section 
401(k).
    For further background, see the ``Background'' section of the 
preamble in the section 414(d) draft general regulations in the 
Appendix to this ANPRM under the headings, ``Exclusion of Governmental 
Plans from ERISA,'' ``Exemption of Governmental Plans from Certain 
Qualified Plan Rules,'' and ``Exemption of Governmental Plans from 
Other Employee Benefit Rules Relating to Retirement Plans.''
    Over the past several years, the IRS has been coordinating with the 
Department of Labor (DOL) and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
(PBGC) (the ``Agencies'') on governmental plan determinations. Although 
the anticipated proposed regulations would only be applicable for 
purposes of section 414(d), the DOL and PBGC were consulted when 
drafting this proposal. DOL and PBGC agreed that it would be 
advantageous for the Agencies and the regulated community for there to 
be coordinated criteria for determining whether a plan is a 
governmental plan within the meaning of section 414(d) of the Code, 
section 3(32) of ERISA, and section 4021(b)(2) of ERISA. See the 
``Background'' section of the preamble in the section 414(d) draft 
general regulations in the Appendix to this ANPRM under the heading, 
``Interagency Coordination on Governmental Plan Determinations.''
    The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined to seek public 
comment on the draft proposed regulations in the Appendix to this ANPRM 
in advance of issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. In light of the 
interaction of the governmental plan definitions in the Code and ERISA, 
a copy of the comments will be forwarded to DOL and PBGC.

Explanation of Provisions

    Attached to the Appendix to this ANPRM is a draft notice of 
proposed rulemaking. The draft regulations include proposed rules, a 
preamble, and a request for comments. The Treasury Department and IRS 
invite the public to comment on the rules that the Treasury Department 
and IRS are considering proposing, which would generally define the 
term ``governmental plan'' within the meaning of section 414(d), as 
well as other key related terms, including ``State,'' ``political 
subdivision of a State,'' and ``agency or instrumentality of a State or 
political subdivision of a State.''
    In determining whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of 
the United States or an agency of instrumentality of a State or 
political subdivision of a State, the anticipated guidance would 
provide a facts and circumstances analysis. The factors used in these 
analyses are drawn from the factors historically used in governmental 
plan determinations, including Rev. Ruls. 57-128 and 89-49. The 
anticipated guidance would provide several examples illustrating the 
application of the facts and circumstances tests. See the ``Explanation 
of Provisions'' section in the section 414(d) draft general regulations 
in the Appendix to this ANPRM under the headings, ``Definitions of the 
United States and agency or instrumentality of the United States'' and 
``Definition of agency or instrumentality of a State or a political 
subdivision of a State.'' See Sec.  601.601(d)(2).
    The anticipated proposed regulations would include numerous factors 
for determining whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of a 
State or a political subdivision of a State. The section 414(d) draft 
proposed regulations in the Appendix to this ANPRM would categorize 
these factors

[[Page 69174]]

into major factors and other factors. The section 414(d) draft general 
regulations would also request comments from the public on whether the 
final regulations should eliminate the distinction between main and 
other factors. In addition, the section 414(d) draft general 
regulations would request comments on the ordering and application of 
main and other factors; for example, whether, as an alternative to the 
ranking of major factors and other factors, the regulations could 
provide a safe harbor standard focusing on control and fiscal 
responsibility under which the entity would be treated as an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State. For 
further explanation of the safe harbor standard, see the ``Comments and 
Public Hearing'' section in the preamble of the section 414(d) draft 
general regulations, which is located in the Appendix to this ANPRM.
    The anticipated proposed regulations do not address the special 
rules that apply in determining whether a plan of an Indian tribal 
government is a governmental plan within the meaning of section 414(d). 
That topic would be reserved in the proposed regulations and is 
addressed in an ANPRM (REG-133223-08) that is being published elsewhere 
in this issue of the Federal Register.
    The anticipated proposed regulations would provide rules for 
determining whether a governmental entity has established and 
maintained a plan for purposes of section 414(d). The anticipated 
proposed regulations might provide that a plan is established and 
maintained for the employees of a governmental entity if: (1) The plan 
is established and maintained by an employer within the meaning of 
Sec.  1.401-1(a)(2), (2) the employer is a governmental entity, and (3) 
the only participants covered by the plan are employees of that 
governmental entity. The anticipated proposed regulations might also 
provide rules covering circumstances involving a change in status of an 
entity (that is, when a private entity becomes a governmental entity or 
when a governmental entity becomes a private entity) due to an 
acquisition or asset transfer. See the ``Explanation of Provisions'' 
section in the section 414(d) draft general regulations in the Appendix 
to this ANPRM under the heading, ``Requirements for establishing and 
maintaining a section 414(d) governmental plan.''
    Recognizing that the guidance might affect numerous governmental 
plan participants and their beneficiaries, the anticipated proposed 
regulations request comments on transition rules, including 
transitional relief for governmental plans that permitted participation 
of a small number of former employees in their plans. See the 
``Comments and Public Hearing'' section in the preamble of the section 
414(d) draft general regulations that is located in the Appendix to 
this ANPRM.

Request for Comments

    Before the notice of proposed rulemaking is issued, consideration 
will be given to any written comments that are submitted timely 
(preferably a signed original and eight (8) copies) to the IRS. All 
comments will be available for public inspection and copying. Copies of 
the comments will be provided to the DOL and PBGC.
    The IRS and Department of Treasury plan to schedule a public 
hearing on the ANPRM. That hearing will be scheduled and announced at a 
later date. In addition to a public hearing, the Treasury Department 
and IRS anticipate scheduling ``Town Hall'' meetings in order to obtain 
comments from the public on the section 414(d) draft general 
regulations. It is expected that these ``Town Hall'' meetings will take 
place in different locations across the country. Participants will be 
encouraged to pre-register for the meetings. Information relating to 
these ``Town Hall'' meetings, including dates, times, locations, 
registration, and the procedures for submitting written and oral 
comments, will be available on the IRS Web site relating to 
governmental plans at http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=181779,00.html.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
is Pamela R. Kinard, Office of the Chief Counsel (Tax-exempt and 
Government Entities), however, other personnel from the IRS and 
Treasury Department participated in its development.

Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

Appendix

    The following is draft language for a notice of proposed rulemaking 
that would set forth rules relating to the determination of whether a 
plan is a governmental plan within the meaning of section 414(d). The 
IRS and Treasury release this draft language in order to solicit 
comments from the governmental plans community:

Background

    This document contains proposed regulations under section 414(d) of 
the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These regulations, when finalized, 
would provide guidance relating to the determination of whether a 
retirement plan is a governmental plan within the meaning of section 
414(d). The definition of a governmental plan under section 414(d) 
applies for purposes of part I of subchapter D of chapter 1 of subtitle 
A (Income Taxes) of the Code (sections 401 through 420) and certain 
other Code provisions that refer to section 414(d) (such as sections 
72(t)(10), 501(c)(25)(C), 4975(g)(2), 4980B(d)(2), 9831(a)(1), and 
9832(d)(1)). It is expected that the principles set forth in these 
regulations would generally also apply for purposes of sections 403(b) 
and 457.

Statutory Definition of Governmental Plan

    Both the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 (ERISA) define the term ``governmental plan.'' Section 414(d) of 
the Code provides that the term ``governmental plan'' generally means a 
plan established and maintained for its employees by the Government of 
the United States, by the government of any State or political 
subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the 
foregoing. See sections 3(32) and 4021(b)(2) of ERISA for parallel 
definitions of the term governmental plan, discussed under the heading, 
``Exclusion of Governmental Plans from ERISA.''
    The term ``governmental plan'' also includes any plan to which the 
Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937 (49 Stat. 967, as amended by 50 
Stat. 307) applies and which is financed by contributions required 
under that Act and any plan of an international organization which is 
exempt from taxation by reason of the International Organizations 
Immunities Act, Public Law 79-291 (59 Stat. 669). Section 414(d) was 
amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (120 
Stat. 780) (PPA '06) to include certain plans of Indian tribal 
governments.\6\ See Notice 2006-89 (2006-43 IRB 772), see Sec.  
601.601(d)(2), for guidance relating to plans

[[Page 69175]]

established and maintained by Indian tribal governments.\7\ These 
proposed regulations do not provide any guidance concerning the special 
provisions in section 414(d) relating to the Railroad Retirement Act of 
1935 or 1937, the International Organizations Immunities Act, or Indian 
tribal governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 906(a)(1) of PPA '06 provides that the term 
``governmental plan'' includes a plan which is established and 
maintained by an Indian tribal government (as defined in section 
7701(a)(40)), a subdivision of an Indian tribal government 
(determined in accordance with section 7871(d)), or an agency or 
instrumentality of either, and all the participants of which are 
employees of such entity substantially all of whose services as such 
an employee are in the performance of essential governmental 
functions but not in the performance of commercial activities 
(whether or not an essential government function). Section 906(a) of 
PPA '06 made similar amendments to sections 3(32) and 4021(b) of 
ERISA.
    \7\ See also Notice 2007-67 (2007-35 IRB 467), see Sec.  
601.601(d)(2) (extending transitional relief for plans of Indian 
tribal governments to comply with the requirements of section 906 of 
PPA '06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Section 414(d)

    These proposed regulations are only applicable for purposes of 
section 414(d), and not for any other purpose under the Code.\8\ 
However, the section 414(d) definition of ``governmental plan'' applies 
for other sections of the Code, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ However, as indicated earlier, it is expected that the 
principles set forth in these regulations would also be taken into 
account for purposes of sections 403(b) and 457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 72(t)(10)(A) (exception to the early withdrawal 
tax for certain distributions from a defined benefit governmental 
plan);
     Section 457(e)(17) (special rules for: (1) Direct trustee-
to-trustee transfers from a section 457 deferred compensation plan to a 
section 414(d) governmental plan in order to purchase permissive 
service credit under section 414(n)(3)(A) or (2) the repayments of 
cashouts under governmental plans);
     Section 501(c)(25)(C)(ii) (exempting section 414(d) 
governmental plans from taxation);
     Section 503(a)(1) (applying the prohibited transactions 
rules in section 503 to governmental plans as defined in section 
4975(g)(2))
     Section 818(a)(6)(A) (defining the term ``pension plan 
contract'');
     Section 1400Q(d)(2)(A)(ii) (special timing rule for 
section 414(d) governmental plans to make certain conforming 
amendments);
     Section 4972(d)(1)(B) (exempting section 414(d) 
governmental plans from the excise tax on nondeductible contributions 
to a qualified employer plan);
     Section 4975(g)(2) (exempting section 414(d) governmental 
plans from the prohibited transaction rules of section 4975);
     Section 4980(c)(1)(B) (exempting section 414(d) 
governmental plans from the tax on the reversion of qualified plan 
assets to an employer under section 4980);
     Section 4980B(d)(2) (exempting section 414(d) governmental 
plans from the COBRA requirements under section 4980B);
     Section 4980F(f)(2) (exempting section 414(d) governmental 
plans from the requirement to provide a notice required under section 
204(h) of ERISA);
     Section 6057(c)(2) (providing rules relating to the 
voluntary submission of annual registration statements by section 
414(d) governmental plans); and,
     Sections 9831(a)(1) and 9832(d)(2) (exempting section 
414(d) governmental plans from the group health plan requirements).

The definitions and rules also apply for purposes of section 
101(h)(1)(A) (special rule exempting governmental plan survivor 
benefits attributable to service of a public safety officer killed in 
the line of duty).
    Currently, there are no regulations interpreting section 414(d). 
Neither section 414(d) of the Code nor ERISA defines key terms relating 
to governmental plans, including the terms ``established and 
maintained,'' ``political subdivision,'' ``agency,'' and 
``instrumentality.''

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 requires that Federal departments and 
agencies engage in consultation procedures in certain circumstances 
where regulations are issued which have a substantial direct effect on 
States. While these regulations when issued as final regulations would 
not have such a substantial direct effect, the IRS and Treasury 
Department have followed similar procedures, including issuance not 
only of these proposed regulations, but also an advance notice of these 
regulations which was published (date to be provided) in the Federal 
Register.

Judicial Determinations of Governmental Entity Status

    Historically, courts have used the test in NLRB v. Natural Gas 
Utility District of Hawkins County, Tennessee, 402 U.S. 600 (1971), in 
determining whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of a 
State or a political subdivision of a State. In Hawkins County, the 
Supreme Court interpreted the term ``political subdivision'' for 
purposes of 29 U.S.C. 152(2) (section 2(2) of the National Labor 
Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Labor-Management Relations 
Act).\9\ Although the Supreme Court in Hawkins County analyzed whether 
the employer at issue was a political subdivision for purposes of the 
NLRA, courts use the same analysis for determining whether an entity is 
an agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a 
State for purposes of ERISA.\10\ The two-prong test in Hawkins County 
analyzes whether the entity has been ``(1) Created directly by the 
state, so as to constitute departments or administrative arms of the 
government, or (2) administered by individuals who are responsible to 
public officials or to the general electorate.'' Hawkins County, 402 
U.S. at 604-05. In addition to this two-prong test, the Supreme Court 
also analyzed other factors, including: Whether the utility had broad 
powers to accomplish its public purpose; whether the utility's property 
and revenue were exempt from state and local taxes (as well as whether 
its bonds were tax-exempt); whether the utility had the power of 
eminent domain; whether the utility was required to maintain public 
records; whether the utility's commissioners were appointed by an 
elected county judge; and whether the commissioners could be removed by 
the State of Tennessee pursuant to State procedures for removal of 
public officials. Many of these factors are similar to the factors used 
in determining whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of a 
State or a political subdivision of a State under these proposed 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 29 U.S.C. 152(2) provides that the term ``employer'' 
includes any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or 
indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly 
owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any 
State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the 
Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time, or any labor 
organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone 
acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor 
organization.
    \10\ ``The NLRB guidelines are a useful aid in interpreting 
ERISA's governmental exemption, because ERISA, like the National 
Labor Relations Act, `represent[s] an effort to strike an 
appropriate balance between the interests of employers and labor 
organizations.' '' Rose v. Long Island Railroad Pension Plan, 828 
F.2d 910, 916 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 936 (1988) 
(quoting H.R. Rep. No. 533, reprinted in 1974 USCCAN at 4647). See 
also, Shannon v. Shannon, 965 F.2d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. 
denied, 506 U.S. 1028 (1992) (stating that the proper test for 
determining whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of a 
State or political subdivision for purposes of ERISA is the Hawkins 
test), Koval v. Washington County Redevelopment Authority, 574 F.3d 
238, 242 (3rd Cir. 2009) (stating that the Hawkins test is the most 
fitting analysis for determining whether an entity is a political 
subdivision), and Brooks v. Chicago Housing Authority, No. 89-C-
9304, 1990 WL 103572 at 1, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8233 at 3 (N.D. 
Ill. July 5, 1990) (applying the Hawkins test).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of 
the United States, courts either apply a facts and circumstances 
analysis or look to the relationship between the entity and its 
employees. In Alley v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 984 F.2d 1201 
(DCCir. 1993), in analyzing whether the Federal Asset Disposition 
Association (FADA), a savings and loan association established by the 
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, was a Federal instrumentality for

[[Page 69176]]

governmental plan purposes, the court focused on the employment 
relationship between the entity and its employees.\11\ In looking at 
the employer-employee relationship, the Alley court concluded that FADA 
functioned more like a private enterprise than a governmental agency in 
the area of its employment relations. ``Measured by the terms and 
conditions of their employment, FADA personnel far more closely 
resembled private sector employees than they did government workers. 
Like employees of `ordinary' Federally chartered S&Ls, FADA's employees 
were outside the civil service system, and were not subject to the 
personnel rules or restrictions on salaries and benefits imposed 
generally on Federal employees.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``We focus our attention * * * on what should be the core 
concern for ERISA purposes--the nature of an entity's relationship 
to and governance of its employees.'' Alley v. Resolution Trust 
Corporation, 984 F.2d at 1206, n. 11.
    \12\ Alley v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 984 F.2d at 1206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in Berini v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Eighth 
District, 420 F.Supp.2d 1021 (E.D. Mo. 2005), the court reviewed 
administrative and judicial authority in determining whether an entity 
is a Federal agency or instrumentality and applied a multi-factor test 
in determining whether the employee benefit plans maintained by the 
Federal Reserve System are governmental plans within the meaning of 
section 3(32) of ERISA. The Berini test was based on the six factors in 
Rev. Rul. 57-128 (1957-1 CB 311), see Sec.  601.601(d)(2), which was 
also the test applied by the court in Rose v. Long Island Railroad 
Pension Plan, 828 F.2d 910, 918 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 
936 (1988). Factors weighed by the Berini court included that the 
Federal reserve banks were established directly by Congressional 
legislation to perform an important governmental function (to increase 
control of the nation's currency and banking system), the banks exist 
only by an enabling statute, they possess only the powers granted by 
the legislation, the private interests involved do not have the typical 
interests of an owner, and the banks are controlled by the Federal 
Reserve Board of Governors, which is a governmental agency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Berini v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 420 F.Supp.2d 
at 1026-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Guidance Regarding Governmental Entity Status

    Revenue Ruling 57-128 provides guidance on when an entity is a 
governmental instrumentality for purposes of the exemption from 
employment taxes under sections 3121(b)(7) and 3306(c)(7). The revenue 
ruling lists the following factors to be considered in determining 
whether an organization is an instrumentality of one or more States or 
political subdivisions thereof: (1) Whether the organization is used 
for a governmental purpose and performs a governmental function; (2) 
whether performance of its function is on behalf of one or more States 
or political subdivisions; (3) whether there are any private interests 
involved, or whether the States or political subdivisions involved have 
the powers and interests of an owner; (4) whether control and 
supervision of the organization is vested in public authority or 
authorities; (5) whether express or implied statutory authority or 
other authority is necessary for the creation and/or use of such an 
instrumentality, and whether such authority exists; and (6) the degree 
of the organization's financial autonomy and the source of its 
operating expenses.
    Revenue Ruling 89-49 (1989-1 CB 117), see Sec.  601.601(d)(2), 
provides guidance for determining whether a retirement plan maintained 
by an organization is a governmental plan within the meaning of section 
414(d). The revenue ruling lists several factors for determining 
whether a sponsoring organization is an agency or instrumentality of 
the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof. While 
the factors in Rev. Rul. 89-49 are similar to the factors listed in 
Rev. Rul. 57-128, Rev. Rul. 89-49 focuses more on the degree of control 
that the Federal or State government has over the organization's 
everyday operations. Other factors considered include: whether there is 
specific legislation creating the organization; the source of funds for 
the organization; the manner in which the organization's trustees or 
operating board are selected; and whether the applicable government 
unit considers the employees of the organization to be employees of the 
applicable government unit. Rev. Rul. 89-49 provides that satisfaction 
of one or all of the factors is not necessarily determinative of 
whether an organization is a governmental entity. See Sec.  
601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b).
    In Rev. Rul. 89-49, citizens of a municipality organized a 
volunteer fire company. The company was incorporated under its State 
laws as a nonprofit corporation, and the company was managed under the 
exclusive control of a board of trustees elected by the volunteer 
firefighters. Area municipalities, including the municipality that 
created the company, entered into contracts with the company to receive 
fire protection services. Under the contracts, it was agreed that the 
operations of the volunteer fire company would be under the exclusive 
control of the board of trustees. While the municipalities made 
payments for fire protection services to the volunteer fire company 
pursuant to these contracts, the municipalities did not contribute to 
the company's retirement plan, and the employees of the company were 
not considered employees of the State or any of the participating 
municipalities. The ruling concludes that the retirement plan 
established and maintained by the volunteer fire company is not a 
governmental plan within the meaning of section 414(d) because the 
degree of control that the participating municipalities exert over the 
volunteer fire company is minimal.

Exclusion of Governmental Plans From ERISA

    Section 4(b)(1) of ERISA provides that title I of ERISA does not 
apply to an employee benefit plan that is a governmental plan as 
defined in section 3(32) of ERISA. Section 3(32) of ERISA generally 
provides that the term ``governmental plan'' means a plan established 
or maintained for its employees by the Government of the United States, 
by the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or by 
any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.\14\ The ERISA 
section 3(32) definition of a governmental plan also includes any plan 
to which the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937 applies, and which 
is financed by contributions required under that Act and any plan of an 
international organization which is exempt from taxation under the 
provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act. Section 
906 of PPA '06 amended section 3(32) of ERISA to include in the 
definition of governmental plan a plan which is established and 
maintained by an Indian tribal government (as defined in section 
7701(a)(40)), a subdivision of an Indian tribal government (determined 
in accordance with section 7871(d)), or an agency or instrumentality of 
either. Under this definition, all of the participants of which are 
employees of such entity substantially all of whose services as such an 
employee are in the

[[Page 69177]]

performance of essential governmental functions but not in the 
performance of commercial activities (whether or not an essential 
government function).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In defining the term ``governmental plan,'' section 3(32) 
of ERISA uses the phrase ``established or maintained,'' whereas 
section 414(d) of the Code and section 4021(b) of ERISA use the term 
``established and maintained.'' For further discussion, see the 
Explanation of Provisions section of the preamble under the heading, 
``Requirements for establishing and maintaining a section 414(d) 
governmental plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4021(b)(2) of ERISA provides that title IV of ERISA does 
not apply to any plan established and maintained for its employees by 
the Government of the United States, by the government of any State or 
political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of 
any of the foregoing, or to which the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 
or 1937 applies and which is financed by contributions required under 
that Act. Similar to section 3(32) of ERISA, section 4021(b) of ERISA 
was amended by section 906 of PPA '06 to include certain plans of 
Indian tribal governments in the definition of governmental plan for 
purposes of section 4021(b) of ERISA.
    Neither the DOL nor the PBGC has issued regulations interpreting 
the terms of sections 3(32) and 4021(b) of ERISA. Both agencies have, 
however, provided guidance for specific entities in the form of 
administrative determinations, and advisory opinions or other opinion 
letters. The IRS, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) have generally applied a facts and 
circumstances approach in providing governmental plan 
determinations.\15\ For example, the IRS issues private letter rulings 
relating to governmental plan status using a facts and circumstances 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The DOL issues advisory opinions. The PBGC issues 
administrative determinations and opinion letters. The IRS issues 
letter rulings relating to section 414(d) governmental plans. For 
this purpose, a letter ruling is a written statement issued to a 
taxpayer by the IRS that interprets and applies tax laws or any 
nontax laws applicable to employee benefit plans to the taxpayer's 
specific set of facts. See section 3.02 of Rev. Proc. 2011-4 (2011-1 
IRB 123, 127), see Sec.  601.601(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exemption of Governmental Plans From Certain Qualified Plan Rules

    Governmental plans under Code section 414(d) are exempt from 
certain qualification requirements and are deemed to satisfy certain 
other qualification requirements under certain conditions. For example, 
the nondiscrimination and minimum participation rules do not apply to 
governmental plans. Section 1505 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, 
Public Law 105-34 (111 Stat. 788, 1063) (TRA '97), amended sections 
401(a)(5)(G) and 401(a)(26)(G) of the Code to provide that the minimum 
participation standards and nondiscrimination requirements of section 
410 and the additional participation requirements under section 
401(a)(26)(G) do not apply to State or local governmental plans.\16\ 
Section 1505 of TRA '97 also amended section 401(k)(3)(G) of the Code 
to provide that certain State and local governmental plans are treated 
as meeting the requirements of the average deferral percentage test of 
section 401(k)(3) and the average contribution percentage test of 
section 401(m)(2).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In addition, section 1505(a)(3) of TRA '97 amended section 
410(c)(2) to provide that all governmental plans within the meaning 
of section 414(d) are treated as satisfying the nondiscrimination 
requirements of section 410.
    \17\ A State or local government, political subdivision, or 
agency or instrumentality thereof, is not permitted to establish and 
maintain a section 401(k) plan. See section 401(K)(4)(B)(ii). There 
is an exception for a grandfathered section 401(k) plan, which is 
generally a plan established by a governmental unit (a State or 
local government or political subdivision thereof) before May 7, 
1986. See Sec.  1.401(k)-1(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 861 of PPA '06 exempts all governmental plans (as defined 
in section 414(d)) from the nondiscrimination and minimum participation 
requirements of sections 401(a)(5)(G) and 401(a)(26)(G) of the Code, as 
well as the nondiscrimination and participation requirements applicable 
to qualified cash or deferred arrangements under section 401(k)(3)(G) 
of the Code.
    In addition to the nondiscrimination requirements, the Code 
provides other exemptions for governmental plans:
     Section 401(a)(10)(B)(iii), which provides that the top 
heavy requirements of section 416 do not apply to a governmental plan.
     Section 410(c)(1)(A), which provides that the minimum 
participation provisions of section 410 do not apply to a governmental 
plan.
     Section 411(e), which provides that a governmental plan is 
treated as satisfying the requirements of section 411 if the plan meets 
the pre-ERISA vesting requirements.
     Section 412(e)(2)(C), which provides that the minimum 
funding standards of section 412 do not apply to a governmental plan.
     Section 417, which provides rules relating to qualified 
joint and survivor annuities and qualified preretirement survivor 
annuities.
    Section 415 also provides a number of special rules for 
governmental plans. The special rules include section 415(b)(11) (the 
100 percent of a participant's average high 3 compensation limitation 
does not apply), section 415(b)(2)(C) (the reduced limitation to the 
annual benefit payable beginning before age 62 and the reduction in the 
dollar limitation to the annual benefit payable for participation or 
services of less than 10 years do not apply to disability or survivor 
benefits received from a governmental plan), section 415(m) (benefits 
provided under a qualified governmental excess benefit arrangement are 
not taken into account in determining the section 415 benefit 
limitations under a section 414(d) governmental plan), and section 
415(n) (permissive service credit).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See also Notice 89-23 (1989-1 CB 654), and Notice 96-64 
(1996-2 CB 229), see Sec.  601.601(d)(2), for guidance relating to 
the nondiscrimination rules that apply to qualified plans maintained 
by governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the principal qualification requirements for a tax-
qualified governmental plan \19\ are the requirements that the plan--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A special rule applies to contributory plans of certain 
governmental entities. Section 414(h)(2) provides that, for a 
qualified plan established by a State government or political 
subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of the 
foregoing, where the contributions of the governmental employer are 
designated as employee contributions under section 414(h)(1) but the 
governmental employer picks up the contributions, the contributions 
picked up will be treated as employer contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Be established and maintained by the employer for the 
exclusive benefit of the employer's employees or their beneficiaries,
     Provide definitely determinable benefits,
     Satisfy the direct rollover rules of sections 401(a)(31) 
and 402(f),
     Be operated pursuant to its terms,
     Satisfy the section 401(a)(17) limitation on compensation,
     Comply with the statutory minimum required distribution 
rules under section 401(a)(9),
     Satisfy the pre-ERISA vesting requirements under section 
411(e)(2),
     Satisfy the section 415 limitations on benefits, as 
applicable to governmental plans, and
     Satisfy the prohibited transaction rules in section 503.

State and local governments, political subdivisions thereof, and 
agencies or instrumentalities thereof are generally not permitted to 
offer cash or deferred arrangements under section 401(k). Instead, they 
can offer a somewhat similar elective contribution program through an 
eligible governmental section 457(b) plan to which section 457(g) 
applies. In addition, section 403(b) includes special rules for plans 
covering public school teachers, including rules under which, in 
conjunction with an eligible governmental section 457(b) plan, the 
maximum dollar amount of the elective contribution for a public school 
teacher is in effect double the maximum for other public or private 
employees.

[[Page 69178]]

Exemption of Governmental Plans From Other Employee Benefit Rules 
Relating to Retirement Plans

    The Code and regulations also provide that plans of governmental 
entities are treated differently than plans of non-governmental 
entities with respect to certain requirements for section 403(b) plans 
and eligible section 457(b) plans, including:
     Section 403(b)(1)(A)(ii), which provides that the 
exclusion allowance under section 403(b)(1) applies to employees who 
perform services for a public school of a State, a political 
subdivision of a State, or an agency or instrumentality of any one or 
more of the foregoing.
     Section 403(b)(12)(C), which provides that the 
nondiscrimination requirements of section 403(b)(12) (other than the 
compensation limitations of section 401(a)(17)) do not apply to a State 
or local governmental plan within the meaning of section 414(d).
     Section 457(f)(2)(E), under which section 457(f) (relating 
to nonqualified deferred compensation) does not apply to a qualified 
governmental excess benefit arrangement under section 415(m).
     Section 457(e)(1)(B), which includes as an eligible 
employer a State, political subdivision, or agency or instrumentality 
thereof and any tax-exempt organization other than a governmental unit.
     Section 457(g), which provides that a deferred 
compensation plan maintained by a State, political subdivision of a 
State, or any agency or instrumentality thereof is not treated as an 
eligible section 457(b) plan unless the assets and income of the plan 
are held in trust for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and 
beneficiaries.
     Section 402(c)(8)(B)(v), which provides that an eligible 
section 457(b) governmental plan is an eligible retirement plan for 
purposes of the rollover rules under section 402(c), so that payments 
from an eligible section 457(b) governmental plan can be rolled over to 
another eligible retirement plan, such as a qualified plan or an IRA, 
and payments from an eligible retirement plan can be rolled over into 
an eligible section 457(b) governmental plan.\20\ An eligible section 
457(b) plan of a nongovernmental tax-exempt entity is not eligible for 
this rollover treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Section 402(c)(8)(B) defines an eligible retirement plan as 
an individual retirement account under section 408(a), an individual 
retirement annuity under section 408(b), a qualified plan, a section 
403(a) annuity, a section 403(b) plan, and an eligible section 
457(b) governmental plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislative History of ERISA

    The legislative history of ERISA and its predecessor bills indicate 
that there were two reasons for the governmental plan exemption: (1) 
Federalism concerns; and (2) the taxing power of State and local 
governments was thought to offer sufficient protection for participants 
in public plans.\21\ In a summary of ERISA's predecessor bill, Senator 
Lloyd Bentsen commented that ``State and local governments must be 
allowed to make their own determination of the best method to protect 
the pension rights of municipal and state employees. These are 
questions of state and local sovereignty and the Federal Government 
should not interfere.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ERISA included a directive for the Committee on Education 
and Labor and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
Representatives and the Committees on Finance and on Labor and 
Public Welfare of the Senate to study pension retirement plans 
sponsored by Federal, State, and local governments and analyze: (1) 
The adequacy of existing levels of participation, vesting and 
financing arrangements; (2) existing fiduciary standards; and (3) 
the necessity for Federal legislation and standards with respect to 
such plans. See Staff of House Comm. On Education and Labor, 95th 
Cong., 2d Sess., Pension Task Force Report on Public Employee 
Retirement Systems (Comm. Print 1978).
    \22\ Staff of the Senate Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare, 94th 
Cong., Legislative History of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974, Vol. I 220 (Comm. Print 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Congress was concerned about pension protection for public as 
well as private employees, governmental plans have been excluded from 
many of the qualification requirements because, in addition to 
federalism concerns, Congress believed that ``the ability of 
governmental bodies to fulfill their obligations to employees through 
their taxing powers is an adequate substitute for termination 
insurance.'' \23\ As a result, ERISA includes exclusions for 
governmental plans under titles I and IV of ERISA and an exemption for 
governmental plans from most of the qualification requirements under 
the Code that were added under title II of ERISA (as described in this 
preamble under the heading, ``Exemption of Governmental Plans from 
Certain Qualified Plan Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ S. Rep. No. 93-383, at 81 (1973). See also H.R. Rep. No. 
93-807, at 164-5 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interagency Coordination on Governmental Plan Determinations

    Historically, the IRS, DOL, and PBGC (the Agencies) have informally 
conferred prior to making determinations on governmental plan status in 
individual cases. In Notice 2005-58 (2005-2 CB 295), see Sec.  
601.601(d)(2), the Treasury Department and the IRS stated their 
intention of publishing guidance regarding governmental plans under 
section 414(d). The Agencies have become increasingly concerned with 
the growing number of requests for governmental plan determinations 
from plan sponsors whose relationships to States or political 
subdivisions thereof are increasingly remote and whose arguments for 
concluding that their plans are governmental plans raise novel issues. 
The use of differing approaches by the courts and the Agencies has 
resulted in uncertainty as entities with organizational, regulatory, 
and contractual connections with States or political subdivisions of 
States try to ascertain which statutory and regulatory requirements 
apply to their retirement plans. These proposed regulations are 
intended to address this issue by establishing coordinated criteria for 
determining whether a plan is a governmental plan within the meaning of 
section 414(d) of the Code. Although these proposed regulations are 
only applicable for purposes of section 414(d), the DOL and the PBGC 
were consulted in developing this proposal. The DOL and the PBGC agreed 
that it would be advantageous for the Agencies and other affected 
parties to have coordinated criteria for determining whether a plan is 
a governmental plan within the meaning of section 414(d) of the Code, 
section 3(32) of title I of ERISA, and section 4021(b) of title IV of 
ERISA. In that regard, comments are requested on any issues arising 
from these proposed regulations in light of the interaction of the 
governmental plan definition in the Code with the governmental plan 
definitions in section 3(32) of title I of ERISA and section 4021(b) of 
title IV of ERISA. Copies of the comments on these regulations will be 
forwarded to the DOL and the PBGC.

Explanation of Provisions

I. Overview

A. In General

    These proposed regulations would generally define the term 
``governmental plan'' within the meaning of section 414(d) of the Code. 
These proposed regulations would also define other key terms relating 
to the general definition of ``governmental plan,'' including the 
definitions of ``State,'' ``political subdivision of a State,'' and 
``agency or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision of a 
State.'' While these terms are commonly used in other Code sections, 
the definitions in these proposed regulations are only

[[Page 69179]]

applicable for purposes of section 414(d), and not for any other 
purpose under the Code. For example, the definition of the term 
``instrumentality'' under these proposed regulations may be different 
for other purposes under the Code.
    As stated, the regulations under section 414(d) would only define 
the term ``agency or instrumentality of the United States'' and 
``agency or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision of a 
State'' for purposes of determining whether a plan is a governmental 
plan under section 414(d). Thus, the rules in these proposed 
regulations would not apply for purposes of defining the term 
``instrumentality,'' under any other provisions of the Code.
    In addition, these regulations do not address certain issues 
relating to governmental entities, including when an entity is so 
closely related to a State that it constitutes an ``integral part'' of 
a State.\24\ The criteria for treating an entity as an ``integral 
part'' of a State will be the subject of a separate guidance project. 
Such guidance defining ``integral part'' may include stricter criteria 
than would apply under these proposed regulations for determining 
whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of a State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Over the years, the IRS has extended the income tax 
exemption it provides to states and political subdivisions to 
entities it regards as their ``integral parts.'' See Rev. Rul. 87-2, 
1987-1 C.B. 18; see also Treas. Reg. Sec.  301.7701-1(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Definition of Governmental Plan

    These proposed regulations reflect the statutory definition of the 
term ``governmental plan'' as a plan established and maintained for its 
employees by the Government of the United States, by the government of 
any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or 
instrumentality of the foregoing. Within this definition, there are 
several key terms relating to governmental plans, the definitions of 
which are set forth in these proposed regulations. As mentioned in the 
``Background'' section of this preamble, section 414(d) also includes 
special rules relating to the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937, 
the International Organizations Immunities Act, and plans of Indian 
tribal governments. These proposed regulations do not address the term 
``governmental plan'' as it relates to the special provisions in 
section 414(d) relating to the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937, 
or the International Organizations Immunities Act. The special rules 
for Indian tribal governments are reserved in these proposed 
regulations and are in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking, which 
is being published elsewhere in the Rules and Regulations portion of 
this issue in the Federal Register.

C. Definitions of the United States and Agency or Instrumentality of 
the United States

    These proposed regulations would define the term ``United States,'' 
for purposes of the governmental plan definition under section 414(d), 
as having the same meaning set forth in section 7701(a)(9). Section 
7701(a)(9) provides that the term ``United States,'' when used in a 
geographical sense, includes only the States and the District of 
Columbia.
    Whether an entity is an ``agency or instrumentality of the United 
States'' is determined based on the specific purpose for which the 
designation is sought and is decided by determining if Congress 
intended the entity to be treated as a Federal entity for the specific 
purpose.\25\ The proposed regulations would define the term ``agency or 
instrumentality of the United States'' as an entity that satisfies the 
facts and circumstances test as set forth in these regulations. The 
facts and circumstances test, similar to the factors weighed by the 
Berini court, focuses on the ``degree to which the entity is connected 
with the * * * federal government.'' \26\ The factors in this test are 
a compilation of various different tests used for governmental plan 
determinations, including factors in the Berini and Rose cases, as well 
as Rev. Ruls. 57-128 and 89-49. The facts and circumstances test is 
similar to that proposed for agencies and instrumentalities of a State 
or political subdivision thereof, (which is described in this preamble 
under the heading, ``Definition of agency or instrumentality of a State 
or political subdivision of a State'') but modified to reflect that 
this definition does not implicate the federalism concerns present in 
making determinations relating to agencies and instrumentalities of a 
State or political subdivision thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Berini v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 420 F. 
Supp.2d at 1025.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations provide that, in making a determination of 
whether an entity is an ``agency or instrumentality of the United 
States,'' the factors to be considered include whether:
     The entity performs or assists in the performance of a 
governmental function.
     There are no private interests involved, or the Government 
of the United States has all of the powers and interests of an owner. 
In determining whether an entity that holds stock has a private 
interest, stock will not be considered a private interest if the stock 
of the corporation is not acquired for investment purposes or for 
purposes of control.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Department of Treasury and the IRS recognize that an 
entity may hold stock for purposes other than investment and 
control. For example, the federal reserve banks are required to hold 
stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of its district because ownership 
is a condition of being a member in the Federal Reserve System. 
Unlike stock in a private corporation, this stock is not acquired 
for investment purposes or for purposes of control. See Berini v. 
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 420 F. Supp.2 at 1024, citing Lee 
Const. Co., Inc. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 558 F. Supp. 
165, 177 n.17 (D.Mich. 1982), citing 4 F. Solomon, W. Schlicting, T. 
Rice & J. Cooper, Banking Law, Sec.  77.02, at 77-6 to 77-7 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The control and supervision of the entity is vested in the 
Government of the United States. Control must be more than the 
government's extensive Federal regulation of an industry.
     The entity is exempt from Federal, State, and local tax by 
an Act of Congress.
     The entity is created by the United States Government 
pursuant to a specific enabling statute that prescribes the purposes, 
powers, and manner in which the entity is to be established and 
operated.
     The entity receives financial assistance from the 
Government of the United States. However, an entity is not a 
governmental entity merely because it receives funds from the 
Government of the United States under a contract to provide a 
governmental service.
     The entity is determined to be an agency or 
instrumentality of the United States by a Federal court.
     Other governmental entities recognize and rely on the 
entity as an arm of the Government of the United States.
     The entity's employees are treated in the same manner as 
Federal employees for purposes other than providing employee benefits 
(for example, the entity's employees are granted civil service 
protection).
    These proposed regulations also provide an example, illustrating 
the application of the facts and circumstances test to a particular 
entity--a Federal credit union. As announced in previous guidance, one 
purpose of these regulations is to address whether a Federal credit 
union is a governmental entity for purposes of determining whether the 
Federal credit union can maintain an eligible nonqualified deferred 
compensation plan. Notice 2005-58 addresses certain income tax issues 
with respect to

[[Page 69180]]

nonqualified deferred compensation plans maintained by Federal credit 
unions, including whether a Federal credit union can maintain an 
eligible nonqualified deferred compensation plan described in section 
457(b). Under Notice 2005-58, a plan in effect on August 15, 2005, that 
is maintained by a Federal credit union and that is intended to be an 
eligible nonqualified deferred compensation plan of a non-governmental 
tax-exempt employer would not fail to be an eligible plan under section 
457(b) solely because the employer is a Federal credit union, provided 
that certain conditions are satisfied (including the condition that the 
plan of the Federal credit union not have claimed to be a governmental 
plan for purposes of section 414(d) of the Code and section 3(32) of 
ERISA). The rule in Notice 2005-58 only applies pending the issuance of 
future guidance regarding section 414(d). See Sec.  
601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b). Accordingly, upon adoption of these regulations 
as final regulations, the special treatment provided in Notice 2005-58 
for Federal credit unions will no longer apply. However, after issuance 
of these regulations as final regulations, a Federal credit union can 
be an eligible employer within the meaning of section 457(e)(1)(B) on 
the basis that Federal credit unions are non-governmental tax-exempt 
organizations.

D. Definitions of State and Political Subdivision of a State

    The proposed regulations define the term ``State'' as any State of 
the United States and the District of Columbia. This definition, which 
is based on the definition of ``State'' in section 7701(a)(10), is 
different from the definition of ``State'' under section 3(10) of 
ERISA, which defines, in relevant part, the term ``State'' as any State 
of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
Islands, America Samoa, Guam, and Wake Island.
    The term ``political subdivision of a State'' is defined in these 
proposed regulations as a regional, territorial, or local authority, 
such as a county or municipality (including a municipal corporation), 
that is created or recognized by State statute to exercise sovereign 
powers.\28\ Examples of sovereign powers include the power of taxation, 
the power of eminent domain, and the police power. The definition of 
``political subdivision of a State'' also provides that the governing 
officers of the authority must be appointed by State officials or 
publicly elected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For certain purposes, the effect of an entity being 
determined to be a political subdivision of a State may be similar 
to the entity being determined to be an agency or instrumentality of 
a State or political subdivision and for other purposes the effects 
may be different. Examples in which it is relevant whether an entity 
is a political subdivision in contrast to an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision include the 
exclusion provided under section 402(l), the excise tax under 
section 4965, and the exception to the 10 percent additional tax 
under section 72(t)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``political subdivision of a State'' has been used for 
purposes other than section 414(d), including the NLRA and section 
103.\29\ The definition in these proposed regulations of the term 
``political subdivision of a State'' applies only for purposes of 
section 414(d), and not for any other purposes under the Code or any 
other statute, including whether an entity is treated as a political 
subdivision for purposes of the NLRA or section 103 of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Two court cases that have analyzed whether an entity is a 
``political subdivision of a State'' for purposes of section 103 of 
the Code are Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shamberg's Estate, 
144 F.2d 998 (2nd Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 792 (1945), and 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. White's Estate, 144 F.2d 1019 
(2nd Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 792 (1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Definition of Agency or Instrumentality of a State or a Political 
Subdivision of a State

    These proposed regulations would provide guidance on determining 
whether an entity is an ``agency or instrumentality of a State or a 
political subdivision of a State.'' These regulations would provide 
that the determination is based on a facts and circumstances test. The 
proposed regulations provide that numerous factors have been applied by 
the IRS in determining whether an entity is an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State. 
Satisfaction of one or more of the factors is not necessarily 
determinative of whether an organization is a governmental entity. One 
factor that is not weighed by the IRS is the way the entity refers to 
itself. For example, the mere fact that an entity is called the 
``Educational Service Agency of City A'' would not be a factor in 
determining whether the entity is an agency or instrumentality of City 
A.
    Major factors for determining whether an entity is an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision of a State are 
whether:
     The entity's governing board or body is controlled by a 
State or political subdivision.
     The members of the governing board or body are publicly 
nominated and elected.
     The entity's employees are treated in the same manner as 
employees of the State (or political subdivision thereof) for purposes 
other than providing employee benefits (for example, the entity's 
employees are granted civil service protection).
     A State (or political subdivision thereof) has fiscal 
responsibility for the general debts and other liabilities of the 
entity (including funding responsibility for the employee benefits 
under the entity's plans).
     In the case of an entity that is not a political 
subdivision, the entity is delegated, pursuant to a statute of a State 
or political subdivision, the authority to exercise sovereign powers of 
the State or political subdivision (such as, the power of taxation, the 
power of eminent domain, and the police power).
    It is expected that, in applying the factor relating to whether the 
entity's governing board or body is controlled by a State or political 
subdivision, the control cannot be a mere legal possibility. Examples 
of situations in which the control factor might be a mere legal 
possibility are cases in which there are a number of tiers of 
intervening corporations between the entity and the State, and cases in 
which the legal power to control is shared among so many governing 
entities that none of them can be said to be responsible in the event 
of a failure to exercise control. In addition, since these two factors 
are interrelated, an entity that would satisfy the control factor would 
not be expected to satisfy the factor relating to whether members of 
the governing board or body are publicly elected or nominated. 
Alternatively, an entity that would satisfy the factor relating to 
whether members of the governing board or body are publicly elected or 
nominated would not be expected to satisfy the control factor.
    Other factors for determining whether an entity is an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision of a State are 
whether:
     The entity is created by a State government or political 
subdivision pursuant to a specific enabling statute that prescribes the 
purposes and powers of the entity, and the manner in which the entity 
is to be established and operated.
     The entity is directly funded through tax revenues or 
other public sources.
     The entity is treated as a governmental entity for Federal 
employment tax or income tax purposes (for example, whether the entity 
has the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds under section 103(a) of the 
Code) or under other Federal laws.

[[Page 69181]]

     The entity's operations are controlled by a State or 
political subdivision.
     The entity is determined to be an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof for 
purposes of State law. For example, the entity is subject to open 
meetings laws or the requirement to maintain public records that apply 
only to governmental entities, or the State attorney general represents 
the entity in court under a State statute that only permits 
representation of State entities.
     The entity is determined to be an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof by a State 
or Federal court for purposes other than section 414(d).
    There are two additional factors to be considered. First, if a 
party other than a State (or political subdivision, agency, or 
instrumentality thereof) has an ownership interest, or other similar 
interests, in the entity, this factor would indicate that the entity is 
not an agency or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision 
thereof (however, an entity would not necessarily be considered an 
agency or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof 
merely because there is no private ownership in the entity or the 
entity serves a governmental purpose). Second, if an entity does not 
serve a governmental purpose, this factor would indicate that it is not 
an agency or instrumentality of a State (or political subdivision 
thereof).
    The proposed regulations include a variety of examples to 
illustrate whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of a State 
or political subdivision thereof. Many of these examples are drawn from 
prior judicial opinions, as well as the Agencies' determinations.\30\ 
Within the description of particular factors, there are some examples 
that illustrate whether a particular factor is satisfied. However, the 
mere satisfaction of a particular factor is not conclusive in 
determining whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality within 
the meaning of these regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, for example, Brock v. Chicago Zoological Society, 820 
F.2d 909 (7th Cir. 1987) and NLRB v. Parents & Friends of the 
Specialized Living Center, 879 F.2d 1442 (7th Cir. 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Requirements for Establishing and Maintaining a Section 414(d) 
Governmental Plan

    The proposed regulations would provide that a plan is established 
and maintained for the employees of a governmental entity if the 
following requirements are satisfied: (1) The plan is established and 
maintained by an employer within the meaning of Sec.  1.401-1(a)(2) of 
the Income Tax Regulations; \31\ (2) the employer is a governmental 
entity; and (3) the only participants covered by the plan are employees 
of the governmental entity. For purposes of determining whether 
employees covered by a plan are employees of a governmental entity, 
employee representatives described in section 413(b)(8) (including 
individuals who are employed by the plan) would be treated as employees 
of the plan sponsor.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Section 1.401-1(a)(2) generally provides that a qualified 
pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plan is a definite written 
program and arrangement which is communicated to the employees and 
which is established and maintained by an employer.
    \32\ See Sec.  1.413-1(i)(1) for rules for when an employee is 
an employee representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations would provide rules for changes in status 
of an entity from a private entity to a governmental entity and from a 
governmental entity to a private entity. As mentioned in the 
``Background'' section of this preamble, the qualification requirements 
for a private qualified plan differ substantially from those of a 
governmental qualified plan. The issue of whether a plan of a private 
employer that later becomes a governmental entity can be a governmental 
plan raises a question regarding the interaction among the three 
definitions of the term ``governmental plan'' in ERISA. Section 414(d) 
of the Code defines the term ``governmental plan'' as ``a plan 
established and maintained by the Government of the United States, by 
the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any 
agency or instrumentality of the foregoing.'' In title IV of ERISA, 
section 4021(b)(2) provides that any plan ``established and maintained 
for its employees by the Government of the United States, by the 
government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any 
agency or instrumentality of the foregoing'' is exempt from coverage by 
ERISA. In title I of ERISA, section 3(32) defines a governmental plan 
as ``a plan established or maintained by the Government of the United 
States, by the government of any State or political subdivision 
thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of the foregoing.'' While 
the definitions in title II of ERISA (Code) and title IV of ERISA (PBGC 
provisions) use the language ``established and maintained'' by a 
governmental employer, the title I definition uses the language 
``established or maintained.''
    This difference in statutory language was addressed in Rose v. Long 
Island Railroad Pension Plan, 828 F.2d 910 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. 
denied, 485 U.S. 936 (1988). In Rose, the State of New York, through 
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), acquired the Long 
Island Railroad Company in 1966 (LIRR). The LIRR had originally been 
chartered as a private stock corporation. As part of the acquisition, 
the State also assumed sponsorship of the Long Island Railroad Pension 
Plan (LIRR Pension Plan). After ERISA was enacted in 1974, the widow of 
a participant who died in 1976 in the LIRR Pension Plan sued the plan 
under title I of ERISA after being denied survivorship benefits. The 
Rose court concluded that the LIRR Pension Plan was a governmental plan 
within the meaning of section 3(32) of ERISA because the LIRR was an 
agency or instrumentality of a political subdivision, the MTA.
    The Rose court took the position that if a private entity is 
acquired by a governmental entity which becomes the plan sponsor, the 
plan can be established by the governmental entity and, thus, be a 
governmental plan. The court interpreted the ``established or 
maintained'' language in section 3(32) literally, but also noted the 
discrepancy between the ``established or maintained'' language in ERISA 
section 3(32) and the ``established and maintained'' language in Code 
section 414(d) and ERISA section 4021(b)(2) (emphasis added). Despite 
this difference in the three statutory definitions, Congress intended 
all three definitions to be interpreted in a similar manner. The Rose 
court reasoned that:

    ``If a plan is required to have been both established and 
maintained by a governmental entity in order to qualify for 
exemption, then a plan which was established by a private entity but 
subsequently taken over by a governmental body would continue to be 
subject to ERISA. This outcome conflicts with the federalism-based 
concerns which led Congress to exempt governmental plans in the 
first place.'' Rose v. Long Island Railroad Pension Plan, 828 F.2d 
at 920.

    The Rose court stated that courts have interpreted the word ``and'' 
as meaning ``or'' if such interpretation would reflect the legislative 
intent of the statute.\33\ The Rose court noted that its conclusion was 
consistent with the approach taken by the PBGC in a similar matter 
involving an entity's change to governmental status prior to the 
enactment of ERISA where the PBGC stated that it would not impose the 
``established'' requirement when doing

[[Page 69182]]

so would frustrate the congressional intent of section 4021(b)(2) of 
ERISA.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Rose v. Long Island Railroad Pension Plan, 828 F.2d at 
919.
    \34\ The Rose court said that: ``We find the PBGC's approach to 
be a sensible one; the status of the entity which currently 
maintains a particular pension plan bears more relation to Congress' 
goals in enacting ERISA and its various exemptions, than does the 
status of the entity which established the plan.'' Rose v. Long 
Island Railroad Pension Plan, 828 F.2d at 920. See PBGC Opinion 
Letter 75-44 (December 9, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rose court also noted that the LIRR Pension Plan had been 
rewritten and substantially funded by the State since its acquisition 
of the LIRR in 1966, and stated that it would have reached the same 
conclusion regarding the plan's governmental status even if the 
definition under section 3(32) of ERISA used the phrase ``established 
and maintained.''

    ``In any event, even if we agreed with Rose that the correct 
interpretation of [section 3(32) of ERISA] was established and 
maintained, we would still not conclude that the LIRR Plan was 
covered by ERISA, because the Plan was in fact established and 
maintained by the LIRR.''

Rose v. Long Island Railroad Pension Plan, 828 F.2d at 920. See also 
Roy v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, 878 F.2d 47 (2nd 
Cir. 1989).
    The court concluded that a broad reading of the term 
``established''--whereby a plan not previously established under ERISA 
may become a plan established under ERISA without the preexisting one 
having been formally ``terminated''--is more consistent with the 
legislative intent behind the governmental plan exemption.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ But see Hightower v. Texas Hospital Association, 65 F.3d 
443, 448 (5th Cir. 1995), in which the Fifth Circuit held that if 
the plan was ``established or maintained'' for its employees by a 
governmental employer, the plan was exempt from coverage under title 
I of ERISA, even if it was not exempt from coverage under the title 
IV ``established and maintained'' test. The Court of Appeals held 
that the difference in statutory language between ``established or 
maintained'' and ``established and maintained'' had to be given some 
meaning, and held that for a plan to be a governmental plan under 
ERISA section 4021(b)(2), the plan had to be both established and 
maintained by the government. Id. at 450-51. The court did not 
discuss what, if any, actions would be sufficient for an employer 
assuming sponsorship of an existing plan to be treated as having 
``established'' the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For reasons similar to those presented by the Rose court, but 
consistent with the ``established and maintained'' language in section 
414(d), the proposed regulations would set forth rules for employers 
changing status from private to governmental that are consistent with 
the legislative intent of the exemption of governmental plans. The 
proposed regulations would provide that if an employer becomes a 
governmental entity or a governmental entity becomes the employer under 
the plan (for example, in connection with an asset transfer), the plan 
will be treated as a governmental plan established by a governmental 
employer on the date of the change (including all of the plan's assets 
and liabilities attributable to service before and after the date of 
the change). Thus, in such a case, under the proposed regulations, the 
plan would have to comply with all the requirements for a private plan 
up to the date of the change and then comply with the requirements for 
a governmental plan after the date of the change. These same rules 
would also apply if a portion of a private plan was spun off to a plan 
maintained by a governmental employer: that portion of the plan would 
cease to be subject to Code rules applicable to nongovernmental 
employers, and instead would become part of a governmental plan, while 
the remaining portion of the private plan that was not spun off would 
continue to be subject to the protection and other rules applicable to 
private plans. These rules would provide standards for determining when 
the Code protections and other rules for a private plan cease to apply 
(and when the substantially different rules for a governmental plan 
begin to apply).
    In the case of a change in status from a private plan to a 
governmental plan, comments are requested on whether, and if so how, 
these regulations should address rights and obligations that accrued 
prior to the conversion to a governmental plan, including the 
responsibility of the former private plan sponsor (or former private 
plan) for benefits that accrued prior to the conversion. Any comments 
that address the potential impact of the proposed regulation's approach 
on rights and responsibilities under title I and title IV of ERISA will 
be forwarded to the DOL and the PBGC.
    Similarly, the regulations would provide that if a governmental 
employer ceases to be a governmental entity, the plan will be treated 
as being established by a private employer thereafter (including all of 
the plan's assets and liabilities attributable to service before and 
after the date of the change). Such a change would occur either where 
the employer entity ceases to be a governmental entity (such as a spin-
off of a corporation) or where the employees become employees of a 
different entity (such as in an asset transfer). Thus, for example, the 
entity in either case would no longer satisfy the requirement that the 
employer be a governmental entity. If such a change occurs, the plan 
must comply with the requirements for a governmental plan up to the 
change and then comply with all the requirements for a private plan for 
periods after the date of the change. (See also the related discussion 
under the heading, ``Comments and Public Hearing.'')
    In the case of a formerly governmental plan becoming a private 
plan, the plan and plan sponsor may secure certain advantages, such as 
PBGC coverage or ERISA preemption, not available to governmental plans 
and governmental sponsors. However, nothing in these proposed income 
tax regulations should be construed to mean that, with respect to a 
transaction such as an asset sale, in which assets and liabilities of a 
governmental plan are transferred to a private plan, the assumption of 
benefit liabilities accrued prior to the transfer to the private plan 
relieves the former governmental employer (or former governmental plan) 
from responsibility for those benefits.
    As previously stated, the proposed regulations would provide that 
if a governmental employer ceases to be a governmental entity, the plan 
will be treated as being established by a private employer on the date 
of the change. The proposed regulations would provide an exception to 
this general rule when there is a change in status from a governmental 
entity to a private entity under certain circumstances. Specifically, 
if a governmental plan ceases to be maintained by a governmental 
employer, the plan will nevertheless be treated as continuing to be a 
governmental plan if the benefits held under the governmental plan are 
frozen and a governmental entity assumes responsibility for the plan. 
While the frozen plan would continue to be treated as a governmental 
plan, the plan would be permitted (but not required) to provide 
participating employees with credit for service with the new employer 
for purposes of vesting, final pay adjustments, entitlements to 
benefits such as early retirement benefits, and similar service credit 
other than benefit accrual credit.
    Further, certain types of plans are limited under the Code to 
specific types of employers, including limitations that apply 
differently depending on whether or not the employer is or is not a 
governmental entity. These limitations on employer eligibility raise 
special problems for cases in which an entity becomes or ceases to be a 
governmental employer. For example, because a qualified cash or 
deferred arrangement under section 401(k) generally cannot be 
maintained by a State or local government or political subdivision, or 
any agency or instrumentality thereof,

[[Page 69183]]

such a plan maintained by a private employer cannot be continued if the 
employer later becomes part of a State. Other special problems arise if 
a governmental employer that is not a tax-exempt organization under 
section 501(c)(3) and that is not a public school attempts to become a 
sponsoring employer of a section 403(b) plan of a tax-exempt 
organization under section 501(c)(3). Likewise, a State entity cannot 
maintain an unfunded section 457(b) plan of a tax-exempt organization 
described in section 457(e)(1)(B). These proposed regulations would not 
alter rules relating to the eligibility of an employer to establish or 
maintain a particular type of retirement plan. An employer that is 
considering a change in its status should evaluate whether it is 
eligible to sponsor any plan that it assumes, taking into account the 
employer eligibility rules. Therefore, sponsors should not assume from 
these proposed regulations that a change of sponsorship from a private 
to governmental employer, or vice versa, will not result in any adverse 
tax consequences. As emphasized elsewhere in this preamble, the 
proposed regulations would provide that the established and maintained 
rules apply only for purposes of section 414(d).

Proposed Effective Date

    It is expected that these proposed regulations would not be 
applicable earlier than for plan years beginning after the date of the 
publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final 
regulations in the Federal Register. Generally, amendment of a State or 
local retirement plan requires enactment of State legislation. The 
Department of Treasury and IRS intends to take into consideration the 
time required to complete the State legislative process when 
determining an effective date for these regulations.

Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is 
not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 
12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also 
been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. In addition, 
because no collection of information is imposed on small entities, the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do 
not apply, and therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not 
required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of 
proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Small Business 
Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Comments and Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, 
consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original 
and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely 
to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS specifically request 
comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made 
easier to understand. All comments will be available for public 
inspection and copying.
    These proposed regulations would provide that a determination of 
whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of a State or a 
political subdivision thereof is based on a facts and circumstances 
analysis. Under the proposed regulations, the factors to be applied 
would be ranked into main factors and other factors.\36\ Comments are 
requested on whether the final regulations should eliminate the 
distinction between main and other factors. Comments are also requested 
on the ordering and the application of the main and other factors; for 
example, whether the final regulations should provide a list of factors 
with a safe harbor standard under which, if an entity satisfies 
identified factors, the entity will be treated as an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, for 
purposes of section 414(d). Comments are also requested on whether the 
distinction between main and other factors should be retained, in 
addition to providing a safe harbor standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ For a list of the factors, see discussion under the heading 
Definition of Agency or Instrumentality of a State or a Political 
Subdivision of a State in the Explanation of Provisions of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The factors identified in this bright line test might be whether: 
(1) A majority of the entity's governing board or body are either 
controlled by a State or political subdivision thereof or elected 
through periodic, publicly held elections (with the nominees elected by 
the voters); and (2) a State or political subdivision thereof has the 
fiscal responsibility for the general debts and other liabilities of 
the entity, including the entity's employee benefit plans. This 
standard might be available only if the entity was created by a State 
government or political subdivision pursuant to a specific enabling 
statute that prescribes the purposes, powers, and manner in which the 
entity is to be established and operated.
    Apart from the special rules relating to plan coverage for 
employees of a labor union or plan under section 413(b)(8), these 
proposed regulations do not include special rules addressing existing 
practices under which a small number of private employees participate 
in a plan that would otherwise constitute a governmental plan under 
section 414(d). Comments are requested on whether an exception should 
be provided in such cases. Parameters that could be taken into account 
for such a special rule include the following: (1) Whether the private 
employees were previously employees of the sponsoring governmental 
entity; (2) whether the private employees were previously participants 
in the governmental plan; (3) whether the number or percentage of such 
former employees who participate in the governmental plan is de minimis 
(and, if so, what constitutes a de minimis number or percentage); (4) 
whether the coverage is pursuant to pre-existing plan provisions; (5) 
whether the private employer performs a governmental function and has 
been officially designated as a State entity for plan participation 
purposes; and (6) whether the employer is ineligible to sponsor the 
particular type of governmental plan (for example, whether a private 
employer is a tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) that can 
sponsor a section 403(b) plan, and whether the private employer 
sponsors or has sponsored plans that cannot be sponsored by a State 
governmental entity, such as a cash or deferred arrangement under 
section 401(k) or an unfunded section 457(b) plan of a tax-exempt 
entity (described in section 457(e)(1)(B)).
    If any special rule for such circumstances were to be included in 
the final regulation, there would be a number of related issues. These 
issues would include how to address the status of such a plan as a 
governmental multiple employer plan. Other issues might include how 
section 414(h) governmental pick-up plans should be treated, 
differences resulting from the application of federal employment taxes 
to a private employer participating in a governmental multiple employer 
plan, the application of the minimum funding rules with respect to a 
private employer participating in a governmental multiple employer 
plan, how the prohibited transaction rules of section 4975 would apply 
with respect to a private employer participating in a governmental 
multiple employer plan, how the special benefit limitation rules of 
section 415 would apply to private plan participants in the 
governmental plan; and what treatment should apply where the plan was

[[Page 69184]]

previously a funded section 457(b) plan of a State or local government.
    If the final regulations do not provide any special rule for cases 
in which a governmental plan continues to cover private employees who 
were formerly governmental employees, it is expected that a reasonable 
transition period following publication of the final regulations will 
be provided. Comments are requested on what transitional relief should 
be provided to a governmental plan that covers private employees who 
were formerly governmental employees and continue to participate in the 
plan that would otherwise constitute a governmental plan under section 
414(d) (such as the governmental plan spinning off a portion of the 
assets and liabilities of the plan with respect to the former employees 
as a separate non-governmental plan). Comments are also requested on 
whether this method of correction might also be appropriate in 
situations such as described in Example 5 in paragraph (k)(4) of the 
proposed regulations.
    The final regulations may also provide transitional relief for 
entities that previously operated as if they were governmental entities 
eligible to participate or sponsor governmental plans but later were 
determined to be private entities under the regulations. Comments are 
requested on what transitional relief should be provided to an entity 
that is later determined to be a private entity. The Treasury 
Department and the IRS anticipate that there will be a reasonable 
transition period following the final regulations for a plan to revise 
its arrangements in order to avoid the adverse tax consequences of 
failing to comply with all the requirements of a private retirement 
plan.
    A public hearing has been scheduled for (date to be provided when 
proposed regulations are published), beginning at 10 a.m. in the 
Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter 
at the main entrance located at 1111 Constitution Avenue NW. In 
addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the 
building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted 
beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the 
hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the 
building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT portion of this preamble.
    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who 
wish to present oral comments must submit written or electronic 
comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and time to be 
devoted to each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by (date 
to be provided when proposed regulations are published). A period of 10 
minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda 
showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the 
deadline for receiving comments has passed. Copies of the agenda will 
be available free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is Pamela R. 
Kinard, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt 
and Government Entities), Internal Revenue Service. However, personnel 
from other offices of the IRS and Treasury participated in their 
development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1--INCOME TAXES

    Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in 
part as follows:

    Authority:  26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.414(d)-1 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  1.414(d)-1  Definition of governmental plan.

    (a) Definition of governmental plan--(1) In general. In accordance 
with section 414(d), for purposes of part I of subchapter D of chapter 
1 of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations, the term 
governmental plan means a plan established and maintained for its 
employees by the Government of the United States, by the government of 
any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or 
instrumentality of the foregoing, as determined pursuant to the 
requirements of this section. The definitions set forth in this section 
only apply for purposes of section 414(d) and this section.
    (2) Definition for plans subject to certain statutes. For purposes 
of part I of subchapter D of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code and 
the regulations, the term ``governmental plan'' also includes any plan 
to which the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937 applies and which 
is financed by contributions required under that Act and any plan of an 
international organization which is exempt from taxation by reason of 
the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669).
    (3) Definition for certain plans of Indian tribal governments. For 
purposes of part I of subchapter D of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue 
Code and the regulations, the term ``governmental plan'' also includes 
a plan which is established and maintained by an Indian tribal 
government (as defined in section 7701(a)(40)), a subdivision of an 
Indian tribal government (determined in accordance with section 
7871(d)), or an agency or instrumentality of either, and all of the 
participants of which are employees of such entity substantially all of 
whose services as such an employee are in the performance of essential 
governmental functions but not in the performance of commercial 
activities (whether or not an essential governmental function).
    (b) Definition of United States. The term United States has the 
meaning set forth in section 7701(a)(9).
    (c) Definition of agency or instrumentality of the United States--
(1) Agency or instrumentality of the United States. For purposes of the 
definition of ``governmental plan'' in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section, the term agency or instrumentality of the United States means 
an entity that satisfies the facts and circumstances test in paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section.
    (2) Facts and circumstances test. Whether an entity is an agency or 
instrumentality of the United States is based on facts and 
circumstances. In making this determination, the facts to be considered 
include the following:
    (i) The entity performs or assists in the performance of a 
governmental function.
    (ii) There are no private interests involved, or the Government of 
the United States has all of the powers and interests of an owner. In 
determining whether an entity that holds stock has a private interest, 
stock will not be considered a private interest if the stock of the 
corporation is not acquired for investment purposes or for purposes of 
control.
    (iii) The control and supervision of the entity is vested in the 
Government of the United States. Control must be more than the 
government's extensive Federal regulation of an industry.
    (iv) The entity is exempt from Federal, State, and Local tax by an 
Act of Congress.
    (v) The entity is created by the United States Government pursuant 
to a specific enabling statute that prescribes

[[Page 69185]]

the purposes, powers, and manner in which the entity is to be 
established and operated.
    (vi) The entity receives financial assistance from the Government 
of the United States. However, an entity is not a governmental entity 
merely because it receives funds from the Government of the United 
States under a contract to provide a governmental service.
    (vii) The entity is determined to be an agency or instrumentality 
of the United States by a Federal court.
    (viii) Other governmental entities recognize and rely on the entity 
as an arm of the Government of the United States.
    (ix) The entity's employees are treated in the same manner as 
Federal employees for purposes other than providing employee benefits 
(for example, the entity's employees are granted civil service 
protection).
    (3) Example. The following example illustrates the application of 
this paragraph (c):

    Example. (i) Facts. Entity A is a Federal credit union, which is 
created pursuant to the Federal Credit Union Act, and is a tax-
exempt organization under section 501(c)(1)(A)(i). Membership in the 
Federal credit union is not open to the general public but to 
individuals who share a common bond, current or former employees of 
specified employers. Entity A is member-owned and is controlled by a 
board of directors that is elected by its membership. Entity A, 
along with other Federal credit unions, is subject to regulation by 
the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), which is a Federal 
agency that charters and regulates Federal credit unions.
    (ii) Conclusion. Based on the facts and circumstances and the 
factors in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, Entity A is not an 
agency or instrumentality of the United States because its board of 
directors is elected by its own members and the directors are not 
responsible to the United States, except to the limited extent set 
forth in the Federal Credit Union Act and regulated by the NCUA. 
Thus, Entity A is not a governmental entity within the meaning of 
paragraph (c) of this section.

    (d) Definition of State. The term State means any State of the 
United States and the District of Columbia.
    (e) Definition of political subdivision of a State. The term 
political subdivision of a State means--
    (1) A regional, territorial, or local authority, such as a county 
or municipality (such as, a municipal corporation), that is created or 
recognized by State statute to exercise sovereign powers (which 
generally means the power of taxation, the power of eminent domain, and 
the police power); and
    (2) The governing officers either are appointed by State officials 
or publicly elected.
    (f) Definition of agency or instrumentality of a State or political 
subdivision of a State--(1) Agency or instrumentality of a State or 
political subdivision of a State. The term agency or instrumentality of 
a State or political subdivision of a State means an entity that 
satisfies the facts and circumstances test in paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Facts and circumstances test--(i) Factors to be considered. In 
making the determination of whether an entity is an agency or 
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision of a State, the 
main factors to be considered are--
    (A) The entity's governing board or body is controlled by a State 
(or political subdivision thereof). For example, an entity's governing 
board or body is controlled by a State (or political subdivision 
thereof) if the public officials of the State (or political subdivision 
thereof) have the power to appoint, and to remove and replace, a 
majority of the entity's governing board or body. This factor is not 
satisfied if the power to control is materially restricted (for 
example, if any board member of the entity can be replaced only with an 
individual chosen from a list of designees selected by the other 
members of the governing board or body);
    (B) The members of the governing board or body are publicly 
nominated and elected;
    (C) A State (or political subdivision thereof) has fiscal 
responsibility for the general debts and other liabilities of the 
entity, including responsibility for the funding of benefits under the 
entity's employee benefit plans;
    (D) The entity's employees are treated in the same manner as 
employees of the State (or political subdivision thereof) for purposes 
other than providing employee benefits (for example, the entity's 
employees are granted civil service protection); and
    (E) In the case of an entity that is not a political subdivision, 
the entity is delegated the authority to exercise sovereign powers 
(which generally means the power of taxation, the power of eminent 
domain, and police powers) of the State (or political subdivision 
thereof) and the delegation of authority is pursuant to a statute of a 
State (or political subdivision thereof).
    (ii) Other factors to be considered. In making the determination of 
whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality of a State or a 
political subdivision of a State, other factors include--
    (A) The entity's operations are controlled by a State (or political 
subdivision thereof);
    (B) The entity is directly funded through tax revenues or other 
public sources. However, this factor is not satisfied if an entity that 
is not otherwise an agency or instrumentality is paid from public funds 
under a contract to provide a governmental service or is funded through 
grants by the State or Federal government;
    (C) The entity is created by a State government or political 
subdivision of a State pursuant to a specific enabling statute that 
prescribes the purposes, powers, and manners in which the entity is to 
be established and operated. However, a nonprofit corporation that is 
incorporated under a State's general corporation laws is not created 
under a specific enabling statute;
    (D) The entity is treated as a governmental entity for Federal 
employment tax or income tax purposes (such as, the authority to issue 
tax-exempt bonds under section 103(a)) or under other Federal laws;
    (E) The entity is determined to be an agency or instrumentality of 
a State (or political subdivision thereof) for purposes of State laws. 
For example, the entity is subject to open meetings laws or the 
requirement to maintain public records that apply only to governmental 
entities, or the State attorney general represents the entity in court 
under a State statute that only permits representation of State 
entities;
    (F) The entity is determined to be an agency or instrumentality of 
a State (or political subdivision thereof) by a State or Federal court;
    (G) A State (or political subdivision thereof) has the ownership 
interest in the entity and no private interests are involved; and
    (H) The entity serves a governmental purpose.
    (3) Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of 
this paragraph (f). In each of these examples, unless otherwise stated, 
only facts that are relevant to the examples are included and it is 
assumed that no party other than a State or political subdivision 
thereof has an ownership interest in the entity and that the entity 
serves a governmental purpose. The examples are as follows:

    Example 1. (i) Facts. Entity C is a utility company located in 
County B of State A. Entity C is created pursuant to a State A 
statute by a petition of 25 private citizens who are landowners, and 
approved by an order of a judge in County B. Entity C is 
administered by a board of commissioners named in the original 
petition, with vacancies to be filled by the incumbents, but with 
State A having the right to remove a board member for malfeasance. 
Entity C has the power of eminent domain. In addition, the records 
of Entity C are public records.

[[Page 69186]]

    (ii) Conclusion. Based on the facts and circumstances, Entity C 
is not an agency or instrumentality of County B within the meaning 
of paragraph (f) of this section because it does not satisfy the 
control factors described in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) of 
this section because Entity C is under the control of a self-
perpetuating board of directors and because State A or its officials 
do not exercise control over the directors.
    Example 2. (i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 1, 
except that Entity C is administered by a board of commissioners 
which is appointed by the Governor of State A and is subject to 
removal proceedings by the Governor of State A, the County B 
prosecutor, or the general public in County B. Vacancies on Entity 
C's district board are filled by popular election or by appointment 
of the Governor of State A. Entity C has the power of eminent 
domain. In addition, the records of Entity C are public records.
    (ii) Conclusion. Based on the facts and circumstances, Entity C 
is an agency or instrumentality of County B within the meaning of 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    Example 3. (i) Facts. Entity K is a non-profit corporation that 
operates a zoo in County J. Entity K is organized under the laws of 
State L. Although Entity K was not created by State law, the 
legislature of State L authorized the State's forest districts to 
contract with zoological societies for the creation, operation, and 
maintenance of zoological parks. County J entered into a contract 
with Entity K, giving Entity K exclusive control and management 
authority over the zoo in County J. Entity K, through government 
contracts, receives over half of its revenues from taxes raised by 
County J. The remaining revenues are from admission and parking 
fees, concessions, souvenirs, and private donations. County J 
maintains a significant amount of control over the budget of Entity 
K, including overseeing the expenditures of nontax revenues 
generated by Entity K. The zoo is located on land owned by County J, 
and vehicles used at the zoo are owned by County J and licensed as 
municipal vehicles. Entity K is managed by a 35-member board of 
trustees. Only one member of the board of trustees is a public 
official. Of the 240 members of Entity K who elect the board of 
trustees, only 4 members are County J public officials. In addition, 
County J has no direct role in Entity K's operation and maintenance 
of the zoo. Employees of Entity K are not treated in the same manner 
as public employees and, thus, are not covered under the civil 
service rules, pension plan, or workers' compensation funds of 
County J or State L.
    (ii) Conclusion. Based on the facts and circumstances, Entity K 
is not an agency or instrumentality of County J or State L within 
the meaning of paragraph (f) of this section. Although Entity K is 
partly funded by County J, it receives those funds under a contract 
to provide governmental service and very few members of both the 
board of trustees and the governing members of Entity K are public 
officials.
    Example 4. (i) Facts. Entity P is a non-profit corporation that 
operates a 24-hour intermediate care facility for mentally 
challenged adults located in State O. Entity P is licensed and 
regulated by State O. While not created by statute, Entity P's 
facility was built pursuant to statutory directives. Entity P is 
managed by a 9-member board of directors, which consists of parents 
of the patients at the facility and other volunteers. The directors 
are elected by Entity P's corporate members. State O has no 
authority to appoint or remove directors. The facility is managed by 
an executive director who is hired by the board without State 
approval. Pursuant to regulations, State O mandates certain 
personnel requirements, including staffing levels and minimum 
qualification requirements for staff members at the facility. 
However, Entity P is responsible for hiring, firing, and other 
disciplinary decisions. State O prescribes an hourly mean wage for 
the employees of Entity P, which limits the total amount that Entity 
P can pay its employees. In addition, State O imposes a ceiling on 
fringe benefits available to employees of Entity P, but Entity P is 
responsible for allocating the funds to pay for the fringe benefits.
    (ii) Conclusion. Based on the facts and circumstances, Entity P 
is not an agency or instrumentality of State O within the meaning of 
paragraph (f) of this section. Although Entity P is directly funded 
by State O, it receives those funds under a contract to provide 
services to State O. Entity P does not satisfy the control factors 
described in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) of this section 
because Entity P is controlled by directors who are chosen by Entity 
P's corporate members. While State O has some oversight control over 
Entity P's employees, through certification requirements and the 
imposition of limitations on pay and fringe benefits, Entity P has 
control over most employment decisions, as well as setting policies 
for holidays, vacations, insurance, and retirement benefits.
    Example 5. (i) Facts relating to University U. University U was 
created by the legislature of State A and is an agency or 
instrumentality of State A under this paragraph (f). The board of 
trustees of University U appoints the president of University U. The 
president of University U appoints the chancellor of the medical 
school of University U. The chancellor of the medical school is also 
a vice-president of University U. The chancellor of the medical 
school appoints the various chairs of the clinical departments of 
the medical school.
    (ii) Facts relating to the corporate structure of Employer M. 
The chairs of the clinical departments of the medical school have 
incorporated a separate entity, Employer M, under State A's not-for-
profit law. Employer M is an integrated group practice for managing 
the clinical practice activities of the medical school faculty and 
was established in order to advance the purposes of the medical 
educational program and related activities of the medical school of 
University U. Under the by-laws of Employer M, any physician 
employee of Employer M must be a faculty member of the medical 
school (and if any physician employee of Employer M leaves the 
faculty of the medical school, his or her employment with Employer M 
terminates automatically).
    (iii) Facts relating to the control of Employer M. Employer M is 
governed by a board of trustees consisting of the chancellor of the 
medical school, the clinical department chairs, and full-time 
faculty members appointed by two-thirds of the clinical department 
chairs. Performance of services as an employee of Employer M is a 
condition of employment for all full-time faculty members of the 
medical school. The faculty members are employees of University U 
and, in the capacity of their employment at University U, 
participate in the State A public employees' pension plan. Employer 
M also employs administrative and non-faculty employees who are not 
treated in the same manner as employees of State A (or University 
U). Employer M charges patients for the services provided by 
Employer M, and a portion of the fees collected are paid to 
University U. The compensation levels for employees of Employer M 
are set by faculty members who serve on the board of trustees of 
Employer M. The compensation paid to faculty members by Employer M 
is a substantial portion of the total compensation paid to them by 
University U and Employer M. Audited financial records of Employer M 
are submitted annually to the president of University U.
    (iv) Conclusion. Employer M does not satisfy any of the factors 
listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(B) through (E) of this section (that 
is, its trustees are not publicly nominated and elected, State A has 
no fiscal responsibility for Employer M, administrative and non-
faculty employees of Employer M are not treated in the same manner 
as employees of State A, and Employer M has no sovereign powers). 
Employer M also does not satisfy any of the additional factors 
listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(B) through (G) of this section, but 
does satisfy the governmental purpose factor in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(H) of this section. With respect to the control factors 
in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) of this section, while all of 
Employer M's trustees are employees of University U, the majority of 
the board of trustees is not controlled by University U but by 
clinical department chairs and full-time faculty members of 
University U. Their service on the board of trustees of Employer M 
is in their capacity as representatives of Employer M, not as 
representatives of University U or State A. Accordingly, based on 
the facts and circumstances, including the lack of involvement of 
University U in overseeing the conduct of the board of trustees and 
the operations of Employer M beyond review of its audited 
financials, Employer M is not an agency or instrumentality of State 
A within the meaning of paragraph (f) of this section.
    Example 6. (i) Facts. Entity W, a private foundation, provides 
public assistance to the indigent elderly in a residence hall built 
on land privately donated to Entity W, located in City V. City V 
contracts with Entity W to provide elder care to residents of City 
V. Over the years, City V has regularly budgeted for services 
provided by Entity W to its residents, including maintenance and 
upkeep of its facilities, and salaries of employees. In 1970, Entity 
W and City V together incorporated a non-profit organization, Entity 
X, called ``City V Eldercare Residence,'' through which Entity W 
would provide its services to the residents of City V. Under

[[Page 69187]]

Entity X's bylaws, Entity X is governed by a board of directors, six 
of whom are appointed by the Mayor of City V, and six of whom are 
appointed by Entity W. Entity X's employees are considered employees 
of Entity X and are not treated in the same manner as municipal 
employees of City V.
    (ii) Conclusion. Although City V is a political subdivision of a 
State within the meaning of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, Entity 
X is not an agency or instrumentality of City V within the meaning 
of paragraph (f) of this section. While Entity X satisfies the 
governmental purpose factor described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(H) of 
this section, it does not satisfy any other factor, including the 
control factors described in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) of 
this section or the employee factor described in paragraph 
(f)(2)(i)(D) of this section (because a majority of the board is not 
appointed by City V and Entity X's employees are not treated in the 
same manner as employees of City V).
    Example 7. (i) Facts. Five States created Commission D as a body 
corporate of each compacting State and territory. Commission D was 
created to provide services to the States on issues relating to 
higher education. Each governor of the five States appoints three 
persons to the governing board of Commission D, which is subject to 
the joint control of the five States. Commission D submits yearly 
reports and budgets to the governors of each of the five States. 
Commission D's operating costs are apportioned equally among the 
States. The IRS determined in a ruling that Commission D was exempt 
from gross income under section 115. The IRS also determined that 
Commission D was an instrumentality of each of the five States for 
employment tax purposes.
    (ii) Conclusion. Based on the facts and circumstances, 
Commission D is an agency or instrumentality of each of the five 
States within the meaning of paragraph (f) of this section.
    Example 8. (i) Facts. Entity S, incorporated under the laws of 
State T as a non-profit corporation, operates a hospital in City R. 
City R leases the hospital and its entire operation to Entity S. The 
lease between City R and Entity S requires Entity S to transfer its 
assets and liabilities back to the City upon expiration of the 
lease. City R created the first board of directors for the hospital, 
but it does not have the power to remove or replace any board 
member. Only one of the 13 board members of Entity S is a public 
official, an ex officio voting member. In addition, the board of 
directors is not elected by the general public of City R. To fund a 
subsequent expansion of the hospital facility, City R issued tax-
exempt bonds. Entity S does not have the authority to issue tax-
exempt bonds. Entity S does not exercise any sovereign powers. 
Employees of Entity S are not treated in the same manner as 
employees of City R. For example, Entity S and City R maintain 
separate payrolls, health insurance plans, and pension plans.
    (ii) Conclusion. Based on the facts and circumstances, Entity S 
is not an agency or instrumentality of City R within the meaning of 
paragraph (f) of this section. Although City R had the power of the 
initial appointment of the board members, it cannot subsequently 
appoint or remove any directors of Entity S, therefore, Entity S 
does not satisfy the control factor described in paragraph 
(f)(2)(i)(A) of this section.

    (g) Special rules for plans of Indian tribal governments. 
[Reserved].
    (h) Special rules for plans subject to the Railroad Retirement Act 
of 1935 or 1937. [Reserved].
    (i) [Reserved].
    (j) Special rules for plans subject to the International 
Organizations Immunities Act. [Reserved].
    (k) Established and maintained--(1) In general. For purposes of 
applying this section (and not for any other purpose) with respect to a 
governmental entity (which is an entity defined in paragraph (b), (c), 
(d), (e), or (f) of this section), a plan is established and maintained 
for the employees of a governmental entity if--
    (i) The plan is established and maintained for employees by an 
employer, within the meaning of Sec.  1.401-1(a)(2);
    (ii) The employer is a governmental entity; and
    (iii) The participants covered by the plan are employees of that 
governmental entity.
    (2) Changes in status--(i) Ceasing to be a private entity. If an 
employer becomes a governmental entity (for example, as a result of a 
stock acquisition) or a governmental entity becomes the employer under 
the plan (for example, in connection with an asset transfer), the plan 
(including all of the plan's assets and liabilities attributable to 
service before and after the date of the change) will be treated, for 
purposes of paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section, as being established 
by that governmental entity on the date of that change.
    (ii) Ceasing to be a governmental entity--(A) General rule. Except 
as provided in paragraph (k)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, if an employer 
that is a governmental entity ceases to be a governmental entity (for 
example, as a result of a stock acquisition) or a private entity 
becomes the employer under the plan (for example, in connection with an 
asset transfer), the plan (including all of the plan's assets and 
liabilities attributable to service before and after the date of the 
change) is treated, for purposes of paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this 
section, as being established by the non-governmental employer on the 
date of that change.
    (B) Exception. If a plan is established and maintained for the 
employees of a governmental entity in accordance with paragraph (k)(1) 
of this section (without regard to this paragraph (k)(2)(ii)) and, at a 
subsequent date, the employer ceases to be a governmental entity (for 
example, as a result of an assets transfer), the plan is treated as 
continuing to be a governmental plan if--
    (1) A governmental entity continues to be the plan sponsor after 
the change (for example, a governmental entity assumes the plan on or 
before the date on which the private entity becomes the employer 
(including becoming responsible for the employer obligations with 
respect to the payment of benefits under the plan)); and
    (2) Benefits under the plan are frozen (with, if provided under the 
plan, participating employees to receive credit for service with the 
new employer for purposes of vesting, final pay adjustments, 
entitlement to benefits such as early retirement benefits, and similar 
service credit other than benefit accrual credit).
    (C) Governmental liability for spun-off benefits. In the case of a 
transaction such as an asset sale in which assets and liabilities of a 
governmental plan are transferred to a private plan, the private 
employer would be responsible for satisfying the minimum funding 
standards of section 412 (including with respect to benefits 
attributable to service performed before the date of the change). 
However, nothing in this paragraph (k)(2)(ii) should be construed to 
mean that, with respect to such a transaction, the assumption of 
benefit liabilities accrued prior to the transfer to the private plan 
would relieve the former governmental employer (or former governmental 
plan) from responsibilities for those benefits.
    (3) Plan coverage for employees of a labor union or plan. For 
purposes of paragraph (k)(1)(iii) of this section, employees of 
employee representatives described in section 413(b)(8) (including 
employees of a plan) are treated as employees of the plan sponsor. See 
Sec.  1.413-1(i).
    (4) Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of 
this paragraph (k):

    Example 1. (i) Facts. Employer C, a non-profit corporation whose 
principal place of business is located in City F, is not a 
governmental entity. Plan B, a retirement plan, is established and 
maintained by Employer C. In a stock acquisition, City F acquires 
all the shares of stock of Employer C and, as a result, Employer C 
becomes a governmental entity.
    (ii) Conclusion. After the acquisition, Plan B is established 
and maintained by a governmental entity. In addition, the employees 
covered by Plan B are employees of a governmental entity. Thus, Plan 
B, including the assets and liabilities attributable to benefits 
accrued in Plan B

[[Page 69188]]

prior to the date of the acquisition, is a governmental plan within 
the meaning of section 414(d) and this section.
    Example 2. (i) Facts. Employer G is a hospital that is an agency 
or instrumentality of State A. Plan J, a retirement plan, is 
established and maintained by Employer G. Plan J satisfies the 
requirements of this paragraph (k) and is a governmental plan within 
the meaning of section 414(d). The assets of Employer G are 
transferred to a non-profit corporation, Employer M, which is not a 
governmental entity. All employees of Employer G become employees of 
Employer M. As part of the transaction, Employer M assumes Plan J, 
with respect to benefits accrued for service both before and after 
the transaction.
    (ii) Conclusion. Plan J is no longer maintained by a 
governmental entity. In addition, the employees covered by Plan J 
are no longer employees of a governmental entity. Therefore, Plan J 
no longer constitutes a governmental plan within the meaning of 
section 414(d) and this section. In order for Plan J to continue to 
be a qualified plan, Plan J must satisfy the qualification 
requirements relating to non-governmental plans, including with 
respect to the assets and liabilities attributable to benefits 
accrued in Plan J prior to the date of the sale. The same conclusion 
would apply if the transfer were a stock transaction.
    Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as in Example 2, except that, 
on the date of the sale, Employer G freezes Plan J, so that 
participants in Plan J are no longer accruing benefits under the 
plan and all accrued benefits are limited to service before the 
sale. In addition, on the date of the acquisition, State A assumes 
Plan J, including responsibility for the payment of benefits 
previously accrued to participants in Plan J.
    (ii) Conclusion. In accordance with paragraph (k)(2)(ii)(B) of 
this section, Plan J continues to be a governmental plan within the 
meaning of section 414(d) and this section.
    Example 4. (i) Facts. Pursuant to a State statute, State L 
permits local towns and villages to establish recreational facility 
authorities to build and promote recreational activities. Under 
Statute K, unincorporated Townships M, N, and O (which are political 
subdivisions of State L, within the meaning of paragraph (d) of this 
section) jointly establish a recreational facility authority, 
Authority R. Financing for Authority F is through local taxes and 
fees. Authority R operates under a three-person board of directors, 
one each appointed by townships M, N, and O. Authority R built and 
operates a skating rink, Facility S, which is located in Township O, 
but is open to the residents of Townships M, N, and O. Facility S is 
wholly owned and controlled by Townships M, N, and O. Township O 
maintains Pension Plan P for its seven employees, which is a 
governmental plan under section 414(d). Township O amends its plan 
to permit the three employees of Facility S to participate. The 
employees of Facility S are not employees of Township O and are not 
employees of a labor union described in section 413(b)(8).
    (ii) Conclusion. The governmental plan status of Pension Plan P 
is not affected by the participation of Facility S's employees 
because Facility S is a governmental entity within the meaning of 
section 414(d) and this section.
    Example 5. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 4, except that 
Township O amends Plan P to permit participation by 10 employees of 
candy and soft drink Vendor T, a supplier for Facility S. Vendor T 
is not a governmental entity.
    (ii) Conclusion. Plan P is no longer a governmental plan within 
the meaning of section 414(d) because it provides benefits to 
employees of a non-governmental employer, Vendor T.

    (l) Employee. For purposes of this section, the term employee means 
a common law employee of the employer (and the rules in section 401(c) 
do not apply).

[FR Doc. 2011-28853 Filed 11-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P