Leaderboard

I work for a company with plenty of people. We tend to come here and ask questions when: 1) We want confirmation we are right/wrong on tricky questions 2) The area is kind of gray or there is unlikely there is clear guidance 3) The facts are rare to get other insights 4) Insight to practical problems- it never hurts to hear what others are doing. There might be more but those come to mind. Besides there are some real characters on this board so you might just get a good laugh out of it also.

I don't work alone. I have all the BenefitsLink-ers doing my job for me!

Do you mean that posting a question as a message here is something other than asking "other plan administrators"? Not intending to be snarky; I'm not sure what you're asking.

The reason I didn't use my real name when I first started coming around years ago I feared my answers could be interpreted I was speaking for my firm which I am not authorized to do so. It has been clear that isn't an issue. So now it is just what it is.

Does my heart good to see that mention; thanks Bill. And you are very right about lifelong friends. I just wish this board required real names (actually, what is Bill Presson;s real name????? :-) ).

Maybe the benefitslinker IS the manager ?

I work for a small firm with coworkers who are helpful and who have a lot of experience and knowledge (living the dream!) but it never hurts to get outside opinions as well. This site is always my first stop when I don't have an answer handy or when I'm 95% sure I know the answer but want to confirm before I say something dumb to a client or advisor -- I may not find the exact answer I need here either, but there's always at least a nudge in the right direction, a citation to hunt down, etc. I also typically browse threads here even when I'm not looking for anything specific, just to see what people are asking and what the responses are. I can't tell you how many times I've been reading something here just out of curiosity, only to have a client call with a question about that exact topic a week later.

I work as the solitary HR person for a 100 employee nonprofit. Before that i worked for a 100 person property management company also solitary HR. In both instances I have been a plan administrator without anyone other than the investment advisor or TPA to ask questions of beyond this Board (and other HR forums). However, I also worked 7 1/2 years for one of the top three Global HR consulting firms in 401k recordkeeping back in the 1990s. And part of it will depend on how good a TPA or investment advisor is and we don't always have the ability to make a change!

I definitely don’t work alone. I’ve found this to be an invaluable resource for varying viewpoints and additional expertise outside of my team. Sometimes the questions are ones neither I nor my team has seen and it is typically one someone or multiple individuals have experienced on this board. I’m learning something new most days from the experts on this board and I have been doing this for awhile

I am not trying to dodge the question but I would recommend they go talk to an ERISA attorney that knows ESOP law. I am constantly shocked based on how plain that language in plans/law is written how often an attorney comes back and says there doesn't need to be a vote. When and how much you disclose can also depend on the at what stage in the sale process the company is at. For example most of the time management is rightfully reluctant to tell about a sale if it is still in the negotiation or due diligence phase as the deal could still fall apart. It seems like there is no duty to tell the people at those stages. It really is a vote to accept a valid, binding offer or not is what the rules are about. As an aside and you might know this but it is always worth pointing out. Be careful making any kind of distributions to people if the sale price per share could be larger than the last appraised price which is often what people are paid at. There have been court cases over this issue where the people paid claimed had they known they could get more they would not have consented to the payment. All of these issues need the help of a good ERISA attorney who knows ESOP law. No one likes to pay attorneys but in this case it is cheap insurance in my mind.

All of the above answers seem to have useful information. We deal with this situation all the time. You can easily create a category and assign these folks to it and give them whatever type of contributions (e.g., elective deferral only) you think appropriate, as long as you pass coverage, nondiscrimination, and top-heavy. If they are owners and it's a small firm, then top-heavy would be your biggest issue until they stop being owners, but you could (again., assuming you pass coverage) put these folks in a separate plan. An inflection point occurs when someone who used to be a partner goes to nonpartner status, because as a partner you could specially allocate their contribution expense to them, whereas once they become an employee or IC the firm has to pay for the contributions. Note that whether a senior non-full-time attorney is "part-time," "retired," "of counsel," etc. could have repercussions on malpractice and other insurance coverages. The ABA has a manual on "of counsel" status, and such folks can be employees (W-2), independent contractors (1099), or owners (K-1).

Could you give them a job title and exclude all under that title? Would have to pass coverage, but you could exclude them by a group. I think that they probably have a few clients that they still do work for, but don't take on new ones. Also how are you tracking hours? Do they work in the office or do they work from home??

Umm.... they are NOT retirees if they are still working! They have simply gone to a more part time status. You have already been told they have to get the SH. As to making them 1099 employees, that is a very bad recommendation and something that can get your clients in big trouble. If they are employees, they are employees. You cannot MAKE THEM 1099; they either are independent contractors or they are not. In your case, they have been employees and they still will be employees and will have to be treated as such.

Can't not give them the SH. For the PS, use a new comp formula and just give them nothing. (if you pass testing) Is the plan Top Heavy?

I would read the plan document - ours says that they are a participant for purposes of their rollover account only, and specifically addresses loans from rollover accounts for limited participants. Our doc allows them (assuming the plan allows loans) unless a limitation on such has been written into the adoption agreement (there is a specific spot available to do so).

PPA provided some guidance, since amplified by Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking REG-133223-08, as to when an Indian tribal government would be considered "governmental," but still did not provide any basis for treating it as a "state or local government." Certain tribal governments have, in the past, maintained Section 457(b) plans for their employees, on the theory that they should be considered state or local governments. However, as far as I can make out, none of them have sought an IRS ruling. The only instance in which an instrumentality of an Indian tribal government can clearly have a 457(b) plan is if it is also an organization exempt from tax under one of the provisions of section 501© (e.g., a school or hospital exempt under section 501©(3)). However, remember that section 457(b) is primarily a limitation, not an enhancement, on the deferred compensation that an organization can provide. An Indian tribal government, unlike a state or local government, can have a 401(k) plan. And an arm or instrumentality of Indian tribal government that qualified as "governmental" (and thus exempt from ERISA's funding standards) could always provide an unfunded deferred compensation arrangement for any or all of its employees, without being bound by the limitations of section 457(b). Even an instrumentality that was considered "commercial" could have an unfunded deferred compensation arrangement for a select group of management and highly compensated employees that was not bound by the limitations of section 457(b).