Leaderboard

David Rigby's point is most important: Be picture-perfect about following the plan's claims procedure (and double-checking that the procedure conforms to ERISA section 503).

Well ...... could there be anything else at issue? Such as a possible partial termination? Any relevant collective bargaining agreement? Failing any special situations, the advice above is correct. Just make sure you follow the plan's procedures related to claims and/or appeals.

Seriously, tell him to go fly a kite--That's not how qualified plans work

Just say no. It's their burden to prove that they have a "legal" reason to claim 100% vesting, otherwise, just ignore them. We often get people (including lawyers) who claim that if they don't get their way, they are going to sue! My response is, "OK. Please copy me on the complaint when filed so we can immediately respond." Never had one follow through on it.

1. I don't know. You tell me if there are two plans or one. That is a fact you need to provide. 2. I don't know. You tell me if they are part of a controlled group/affiliated service group. Are the two locations just two locations of "one" company, or are they each a separate entity? Who are the owners? If they are "separate" entities are they under sufficiently common ownership (a mathematical test that results in the answer with certainty) to be a controlled group? If they aren't a controlled group, what attributes of an ASG do they have? I don't mean to be flippant - but you need to provide a lot more facts for anyone to determine what the scenario is, and even what your question is (or should be).

Anyone who's 'handle' is "Doghouse' must exist - The Cosmos is not that clever as to create it by accident.

How about something as simple as: 26 U.S. Code § 457 - Deferred compensation plans of State and local governments and tax-exempt organizations, (d) Distribution requirements, (2) Minimum distribution requirements A plan meets the minimum distribution requirements of this paragraph if such plan meets the requirements of section 401(a)(9). And if that is not enough see: 26 CFR 1.457-6 - Timing of distributions under eligible plans, (d) Minimum required distributions for eligible plans.

A plan that size should have a consultant for a variety of reasons, let along guiding the plan fiduciaries through the fiduciary process of selecting services providers (including retaining the existing service providers should their RFP process lead them to that conclusion) - who may themselves be fiduciaries. The question really revolves around whether or not the plan fiduciaries (internal to the plan sponsor) are "expert" enough to meet the standard of a "prudent expert" in the RFP process. I doubt it - they all have "day jobs" too, and the "corporate" objectives need to be balanced against the plan's interests - and they may be divergent. Lots of consultants out there who would do it: Mercer, Towers, Buck (national players) and lots and lots of regional players....

Not sure if this helps or hurts but I used to work for a large benefit consulting company and this was a rather significant book of business. The size plan you describe seemed the most common type of plan they did this kind of work for them. It caused a little tension as they had to promise to not even consider our own TPA business as that was an obvious conflict of interest. So the debate was always was the company better off with this one time RFP consulting jobs or trying to get the recurring TPA work.

What's interesting about this is that the transition period, unlike the transition period in 410(b)(6)(C) which is the end of the calendar year following the calendar year the transaction takes place, is a TWO year transition period. So if it takes place in 2017, and you otherwise satisfy the requirement, you can run the SIMPLE through the end of 2019.

Can't help you but it seems like you have a consistent business model.

If you want to give them an answer besides the one noted above which would be my preferred answers it seems like the reason is because an operational error would disqualify a plan. So tell them a plan has to follow the terms of the plan and failure to do so would mean the plan is no longer a tax qualified plan under the tax code. To agree to an operational error by a fiduciary makes the fiduciary liable for damages done to the rest of the participants.

(50 -(40-10) -10)= 10K The next day should be: (50-(50-20) -20) = 0K

The next day, his HOB is 50K, not 40K, because he has just taken out an additional 10K. So his amount available to borrow would be $0. Why do you say his HOB is still 40K the next day?