Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for highly compensated employees than for other employees. Exhibit “A” to Appellee’s Answer Brief (emphasis added). Clearly, the I.R.S. determination letter does not inquire into the operation of the Profit Sharing Plan and, in fact, limits its own applicability in that regard. Therefore, since the Bankruptcy Court below, did not consider evidence regarding operational aspects of the Profit Sharing Plan, and instead relied upon the favorable I.R.S. determination letter, the Bankruptcy Court committed reversible error. This issue shall be remanded back to the Bankruptcy Court to determine whether, in light of the Debtor’s operation of the Profit Sharing Plan, such Plan is qualified under Internal Revenue Code § 401(a). See e.g., In re McDonald, 100 B.R. 598 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1989) (<HOLDING>). While this Court understands the lower 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language (B) recognizing that benefit plans must designate a fiduciary to serve as the plan administrator (C) holding that since favorable irs determination letter does not express an opinion as to the plans current operation plan is not exempt (D) holding that an erisa insurers declaratory suit seeking a favorable interpretation of a standard policy clause against a party having no obligations under the plan was not an action to enforce the plan terms (E) holding that attorneyclient privilege was not waived when a letter sent by an irs regional counsel to the doj requesting legal services was copied to other irs personnel involved in the investigation
Output (English): holding that an erisa insurers declaratory suit seeking a favorable interpretation of a standard policy clause against a party having no obligations under the plan was not an action to enforce the plan terms