Ezel / IRS Rulings / 200913020

CCA 200913020: An extra employer assessment required a written labor agreement

Number
200913020
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Minimum Participation Standards
Topics
Retirement plans, IRAs, and annuities
Code sections
§ none cited
Ruling dated
July 7, 2008
Publicly released
March 27, 2009
Source
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2009, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2009
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel reviewed proposed employer contributions that were not included in a collective bargaining agreement or another written agreement. The writer agreed with the recipient's concern and believed the arrangement appeared to violate section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act. Because the contributions had to be made under a written agreement, an additional assessment not covered by such an agreement would violate that requirement. The brief release does not describe the plan or proposed assessment further.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Could an additional employer assessment be collected when it was absent from the collective bargaining agreement or another written agreement?
  • Outcome: Advice given: the assessment would violate the cited labor-law requirement.
  • Key authorities: Taft-Hartley Act § 302; no Internal Revenue Code section cited in the released message.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-771044-08 Number: 200913020
Release Date: 3/27/2009
Office: -------------------------
UILC: 410.00-00

From: -----------------
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:44 AM
To: ------------------------------------
Cc: --------------------
Subject: RE: QUESTION

I think you are correct. This seems like a violation of 302 of the Taft Hartley Act. Besides your concerns below, these contributions would have to be made pursuant to a written agreement. An additional assessment that was not included in the collective bargaining agreement or other such agreement would be a violation.

--------

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace