Casemaker - NC - Case Law - Search - Result

Casemaker - NC - Case Law - Search - Result: "Federal courts have consistently held that there is no basis to find that the provisions of section 401 of the IRC -- which relate solely to the criteria for tax qualification under the Internal Revenue Code -- are imposed on pension plans by the substantive terms of ERISA. See Reklau v. Merchants Nat. Corp., 808 F.2d 628, 631 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1049, 95 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1987); Cowan v. Keystone Emp. Profit Sharing Fund, 586 F.2d 888, 890 n.3 (1st Cir. 1978) ('This section [§ 401 of the I.R.C.] does not appear to create any substantive rights that a beneficiary of a qualified retirement trust can enforce.'); Wiesner v. Romo Paper Products Corp., Etc., 514 F. Supp. 289, 291 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) ('The sections relied on, 26 U.S.C. §§ 401, 404 and 503, do not create a substantive right that a beneficiary, participant, or fiduciary could enforce.'); Vermeulen v. Cent. States, Southeast and Southwest, 490 F. Supp. 234, 237 n.6 (M.D.N.C. 1980) ('This court agrees with the First Circuit's holding in Cowan v. Keystone Employees Profit Sharing Fund, 586 F.2d 888, 890 n.3 (1st Cir. 1978).'). While all of these federal cases deal with attempts to use provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as the basis for actions against retirement plans which are covered by ERISA, we find no reason why a different rule should apply in the context of an attempt to use section 401 of the IRC as the basis of an implied private cause of action against a government retirement plan that is exempt from ERISA. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact and plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law."