ERISA Benefits Law Desk ReferenceERISA Benefits Tech, LLC

Part 20 · Chapter 2

Church Plans

Law stated as of October 3, 2026 · Governmental, Church, and Tribal Plans

Scope and status

Church-plan status is an all-or-nothing exemption from ERISA that carries enormous consequences in both directions: no fiduciary rules, no funding rules, no PBGC — and, correspondingly, no ERISA preemption of State law and no federal remedy for participants. The classification questions in Parts A and E decide most engagements. For 403(b) substance, see Part 8 (403(b) Plans) (including §403(b)(9) retirement income account mechanics), nondiscrimination testing to Part 5 (Qualified Plan Testing, Eligibility, and Vesting), and health-plan rules to Part 13 (COBRA, HIPAA, and Welfare Benefits) and Part 15 (Health Plan Parity, CAA, and Transparency).

Sections

The opening sections of Part A are shown in full. The other sections are listed by title; their text is available to subscribers.

Part A — Status Under §414(e)

A1.The definition

Part 20, ch. 2, § A1

A church plan is a plan established and maintained for its employees by a church or a convention or association of churches exempt under §501. The definition extends to a plan maintained by an organization controlled by or associated with a church, and to employees of such organizations. Statute: Code §414(e); ERISA §3(33); Final reg: Treas. Reg. §1.414(e)-1. An organization is associated with a church if it shares common religious bonds and convictions with that church. Statute: Code §414(e)(3)(D). Statute: Code §414(e)(4).

A2.Advocate — the establishment question is settled

Part 20, ch. 2, § A2

A plan need not have been established by a church. A plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization — an organization controlled by or associated with a church whose principal purpose or function is the administration or funding of the plan — qualifies as a church plan. Case law: Supreme Court — Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, 581 U.S. 468 (2017) (unanimous).

A3.What remains contested after Advocate

Part 20, ch. 2, § A3

Post-Advocate disputes concentrate on two points: whether the entity is genuinely controlled by or associated with a church (the "common religious bonds and convictions" standard, which is not defined by regulation and is applied inconsistently), and whether the committee said to maintain the plan is a bona fide principal-purpose organization — properly constituted, actually functioning, and with plan administration or funding as its principal purpose rather than a paper designation. Statute: Code §414(e)(3)(A), (D); Case law: Circuit — Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 877 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2017) and Sanzone v. Mercy Health, 954 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2020) (both finding the plan within the exemption); Smith v. OSF HealthCare System, 933 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2019) (vacating and remanding for discovery) — verify the governing circuit's authority.

  1. A4IRS private letter rulingsSubscribers

Part B — Consequences of Church-Plan Status

  1. B1ERISA exemption, and what it costsSubscribers
  2. B2Code rules that still applySubscribers
  3. B3The §410(d) election — a one-way doorSubscribers

Part C — Ministers, Housing, and Employment Taxes

  1. C1Ministers' participation and the housing allowanceSubscribers
  2. C2The §3121(w) FICA electionSubscribers

Part D — The QCCO / Non-QCCO Line

  1. D1The distinction and why it controls testingSubscribers
  2. D2Denominational and multiple-employer arrangementsSubscribers

Part E — Church Welfare Plans (the under-analyzed half)

  1. E1No ERISA means no preemptionSubscribers
  2. E2The federal health rules still reach church plansSubscribers
  3. E3Participant remedies and State-law exposureSubscribers

The first Part of each chapter is open to everyone. The remaining sections, with their authority and practice points, are available to subscribers and to clients of ERISA Benefits Law Group, PLLC whose engagement includes access.

Sign inSubscribe