Hardship withdrawals from ESOP?
Posted 21 September 2001 - 06:32 PM
Posted 21 September 2001 - 07:56 PM
As a stock bonus plan, an ESOP may provide for in-service hardship distributions the same as a profit sharing plan. Nothing has changed in this regard since 1971. But, if the ESOP includes a money purchase pension plan, that portion of the ESOP may not have pre-retirement in-service hardship withdrawals.
In the case of a closely-held company ESOP, however, the repurchase obligation that arises in connection with benefit distributions may limit hardship distributions to the extent there is not sufficient liquidity in the ESOP or the company.
Posted 22 September 2001 - 11:36 AM
Posted 22 September 2001 - 02:47 PM
You referred to a Rev Ruling but then added "but it is dated". What did you mean?
Posted 24 September 2001 - 12:01 PM
You referred to "a hardship distribution feature to be limited to times when the plan had adequate cash" and then said that you "would not try such a provision."
Such a limitation on hardship distributions is not uncommon in the many closely-held company ESOPs that do include a hardship distribution feature. In my experience, the IRS has never declined to issue a determination letter to an ESOP which includes such a provision.
Why would you "not try such a provision" ? If there's a determination letter and the ESOP fiduciaries apply the feature in a non-discriminatory manner, there should be no concern under the IRC or ERISA.
Posted 24 September 2001 - 03:39 PM
I also would not try such a provision, not only for the difficulty of applying iit n a non-discriminatory manner, but timimg issues, availability of funds issues and record keeping and payback issues. I see administrative nightmares.
Posted 24 September 2001 - 03:58 PM
What recordkeeping and payback issues? We're talking about hardship withdrawals, not participant loans.
Many ESOP companies have implemented hardship (and other in-service) withdrawal features and have not been faced with "administrative nightmares." If a company really wants an in-service withdrawal feature in its ESOP, the administrative issues are not very difficult. I see very little difficulty for a fiduciary in applying a standard of non-discrimination to a plan feature. Availability of funds is the very limitation that we were addressing....if there are no funds available, there are no hardship distributions.
In advising companies on the design of an ESOP, I've always thought that it was better for a professional to explain to a company how to do what it wants to do....so long as it's legal....while pointing out the risks, problems, issues, etc., involved....and then letting the company decide whether it wants to include the feature in the ESOP. I believe this approach is preferable to just saying "No, you can't (or shouldn't) do that...it's too hard to administer, etc....."
My reference to an IRS determination letter was in response to QDROphile's comment that he/she would not "try" such a provision. I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that he/she thought that there may be a qualification issue with the provision that he/she described.
Posted 25 September 2001 - 11:20 AM
Posted 25 September 2001 - 11:55 AM
While you may be uncomfortable with what you refer to as "special vague rules under ESOP lore," I'm very uncomfortable with any approach that advises, in effect, that "You can't do what you'd like to do...even though many other ESOPs do it...even though the IRS OKs it...even though your employees want it...because I'm not sure what the rules are."
ESOPs have been utilized for more than 40 years and have been specifically recognized under the IRC and ERISA for 27 years. After all this time, there is certainly enough legal/regulatory authority and practical experience for ESOP companies to be adequately informed by knowledgable advisers regarding plan design features that are available, including the advantages, disadvantages, problems, risks, alternatives, etc., that should be considered.
You may think that the policy reasons for allowing flexibility/creativity in the design and operation of ESOPs are "questionable," but it's very clear that it is Congress that has largely been responsible for creating "ESOP land" (as you call it) by repeatedly (since 1973) enacting significant incentives to promote employee ownership through ESOPs.