Sec. 10-183kk. Employer pick up of mandatory contributions commencing July 1, 1991. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, mandatory retirement contributions described in subdivision (7) of section 10-183b payable on all salary earned on or after July 1, 1991, shall be picked up by the employer of any teacher who is a member of the state teachers? retirement system. Such picked- up contributions shall be in lieu of employee contributions. The employer shall pick up these mandatory contributions by an equivalent reduction in the cash salary of the employee. Employees shall not have the option of choosing to receive the contributed amounts directly instead of having them paid by the employer to the retirement system. Employee contributions so picked up shall be treated for all purposes in the same manner and to the same extent as employee contributions prior to July 1, 1991. The mandatory contributions so picked up by the teacher's employer shall for all purposes of this chapter be considered to be included in the teacher's annual salary. John, the effect of an employer pick up of contributions is for them to be considered tax free during the years contributed, thus taxable during the years received by the member in the form of a refund or pension bene?t. Sec. 10-183z(d) The funds of the teachers? retirement system, except the expense fund, shall not be reduced or used for other than the purposes of said system. The following was provided by the TRB Attorney: Governmental plans are not exempt ?'om section 402(b) of the IRC. This section will tax vested participants currently on each year's accrual if a plan is disquali?ed for any reason other than discrimination. Violation of the exclusive bene?t rule would likely result in disquali?cation of the TRB plan as the contributions paid to the TRB and then credited to the general fund would be funds used for a purpose other than to pay bene?ts under the plan to participants or their bene?ciaries. This would result in a very expensive tax bill due the federal and state governments by participants as a result of the statutory changes imposed by the Connecticut legislature. Moreover, the participants would likely claim liability due to the state action and a breach of its contractual rights under the plan. In turn, a very substantial cost to the state for this action could result ?'om the intentional act to divert the contributions from the TRB to the general ?md.