Medusa Posted January 9, 2002 Share Posted January 9, 2002 We have a plan that was terminated in the first part of 2001. The termination was submitted to the IRS and an approval letter was received in December. The plan is a calendar year plan. Distributions are being made currently. We did not include any EGTRRA language in the termination amendment. Does anyone know whether we are required to add in language for EGTRRA? Of particular concern to me are the rollover rules (Re rolling out, not rolling in). If you think we need to amend for some EGTRRA provisions... which ones? Rollover and top-heavy are the only ones that come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pensionadmin Posted January 9, 2002 Share Posted January 9, 2002 Since plan was terminated in 2001 and EGTRRA became effective in 2002, I don't think there's any need to amend, especially since you've gotten an IRS dletter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medusa Posted January 9, 2002 Author Share Posted January 9, 2002 pensionadmin: If we took that approach, do you think we can refuse to make a rollover to a 403(B) (for example) because the plan does not provide for such a rollover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pensionadmin Posted January 9, 2002 Share Posted January 9, 2002 I think I'd feel comfortable with that but I tried to research it and really couldn't find any guidance. Maybe calling the IRS agent who reviewed the plan termination would be an option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Maldonado Posted January 9, 2002 Share Posted January 9, 2002 Read Rev. Rul. 89-87, 1989-2 CB 81. Kirk Maldonado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medusa Posted January 9, 2002 Author Share Posted January 9, 2002 Kirk: I have read it. It applies to a situation where assets were not distributed as soon as administratively feasible following the termination. In this case, they were. Are you suggesting that the converse of the situation described in the Rev. Rul. is true, i.e., that if assets are distributed as soon as administratively feasible, the plan does not need to comply with changes in the law, in form or in operation? Medusa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Maldonado Posted January 10, 2002 Share Posted January 10, 2002 Yes. Kirk Maldonado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now